I have a theory about free speech

I have a theory about free speech.

1. Speech about speech should be completely unrestricted. Period. No discussions, I claim this ought to be public policy.

2. In principle, there may be restrictions on other types of speech. Particularly "speech acts" which are extremely likely to result in undesirable outcomes (eg falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theatre, instructing your military subordinates to commit a war crime, threatening someone, other types of coercion - these should not be protected speech.) This ought to be public policy.

3. The types of speech that ought to be restricted should be EXTREMELY limited - I don't think that speech that is persuasive, but not coercive, should be banned, BUT I do support the notion that some types of speech should be required to provide links to opposing points of view (in theory - might not work in practice). I would also like to see speech that exploits the ignorance (either factual or moral) of the listener restrictable under highly limited circumstances. I am making these last claims as an individual, not claiming that it ought to have the full force of public policy - unless other agree.