Yes.
> "Why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy for murder?"
Because "murder advocacy" is just something that you're hung up on. There are many more people who are hung up on offensive speech, hate speech, pornography, blasphemy, etc. And the reason those aren't illegal is that the first amendment doesn't judge expression based on its "benefit".
If this weren't the case, then every successive government regime at every level would seek to apply it's own agenda to your speech, and all those things I listed above and plenty more would be at risk. Because while you have your own opinion about "murder advocacy", there are many more powerful people who have their own little opinions about other speech that you might actually value. Once again, the only reason you don't have to worry about those people is that the constitution doesn't allow them to judge your speech by the rules you're proposing here. Sort of ironic huh?