So what about the threat of violence then. If the mob boss tells the shop keeper “it’s a nice shop you have there, it would be a shame…” and the shop keeper gives him money. Is that still free speech? The mob boss didn’t act on the threat. What about the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it is just speech? The muslims who decide to act on it aren’t coerced, remunerated or affiliated to the Iranian regime. So it’s a threat of violence but you can make the case the authors aren’t involved themselves in any crime.
Those are good points! But let's consider them in a practical light.
For the mob boss, he is committing an actual crime of extortion. If a shopkeeper goes to police, the mob defense would not be "we were in our rights to threaten", but "we never said this; no idea what the shopkeeper is saying". A prosecutor would have to prove that it was indeed an extortion, but if he proves this to a jury the specific words said would be irrelevant and a first amendment claim would fail.
The same way if an insider is telling a friend about a stock merger during a quiet period, it is an actual crime. The specific words and methods do not matter.
It is tempting to restrict the speech in an attempt to minimize the evil. But giving state this power sooner or later vests it in some political clique that will use it for political suppression; original noble goals be damned. And this is almost impossible to undo.
