this is not free speech under any definition, it is controlled speech with latitude.

>The most essential outlawed speech is speech that directly urges others to violence.

how do you differentiate between urging others to violence and calls for 'direct action', 'bash the fash' etc?

the black panthers and the nation of islam were widely criticized by the establishment for instigating violence and the armament of black people. the fbi thought mlk was a communist instigator. neither the american civil rights movement nor it's predecessors in the abolitionist movement would largely pass the smell test for permissible speech under european restrictions. likewise, hate speech laws do not have a good track record for preventing the rise of fascism. both weimar germany and tsarist russia had speech restrictions and aggressive censorship regimes. it didn't work.

Does the American Revolution count? (No snark, I'm serious.)

Freedom of speech as recognized in the US Constitution is about the recognition that one person doesn't have the right to silence another, and forming a government doesn't grant that right, and cannot. There ain't no King anymore.

The First Amendment is not an authority granting a right, it's an authority recognizing the limits of its own power or domain. It doesn't say "y'all have the right to say what you want" it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" It's saying that even the highest authority in the land doesn't have the right to limit what someone says. (Although you certainly don't have to listen!)