No, I don't see the point. I never said anything about tasteless hyperbole, idle stupid chatter on facebook, criticizing others' religions, or advocating for sedition. Obviously there are times where those things are beneficial. (Since my reply you added some other things that I never brought up. Include them as well.)

I was just wondering, is it ever beneficial to advocate for murder? If it is not beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

So far as I understand you, your answer is: we need to protect it because it's the law. I know that it's the law. I am asking, why do we need that law, when it comes to advocacy for murder? Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for murder, soon we'll be banning other things that do have some arguable benefit? If that is what you are saying, why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy for murder?

Note (again): in the specific case of advocacy for terrorism, we did ban advocacy for murder.