a quick stroll down the interwebs will show you that there are a number of non-protected speech;
Here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Fighting_words
Rather than boiling down all the jargon- you can't induce violence, or harrass, or create danger, or knowingly lie to general population (except political speech) (* especially in court unless you like Perjury charges), copyright speeches, and here is the link above on the stuff not protected.
Here are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about.
First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[20]
Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can sometimes be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category.
Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[21]
Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception.[22][23]
so outside of the realm of politics, freedom of speech is not 100% and even some political speech isn't.
I'd say some of the things said on Jan 6th, were likely some of that crappola by the folks who took that stage- Of course the term hyperbole of truth has come about- but isn't that like Bill Clinton talking about what the word "it" meant? The difference is / was, Clinton was atleast smart enough to talk about this situation directly with Kenny Star, where not one of those inferred above could do that today.
I do think a majority of things said should be allowed as 1st party political free speech, but when you know things to be false, and continue to parade it as true, there needs to be limitations; and libel charges when it creates a cascading effect for both the speaker and the listener who takes actions based on the content. People who break the law based on someone else's instructions might be a case in point.
