In the case of free speech, the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill drew the line at incitement. He famously contrasted a newspaper article in which the author claimed that corn dealers were starvers of the poor, with the same view spoken (or communicated via a placard) right outside a corn dealer’s house. The first is a controversial opinion that should be allowed to enter the public debate, even if the view is false or immoral; the second is, in those circumstances, an act of incitement to violence and unacceptable.
Mill's example is probably well-known in legal and philosophical circles and forms the basis for what became known as his Harm Principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle#:~:text=John Stuart Mill articulated the,Declaration of the Rights of
The key issue here is whether Facebook posts or tweets on X are comparable to Mill's placard, given that we are living at a time when disinformation abounds on social media and spreads like wildfire, leaving ordinary media outlets playing catch-up, and there are also lots of credulous people out there who are distrustful of the MSM but seem willing to take any old bollocks and shit at face value.
