> would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise

I think that's incredibly naive and doesn't actually work in the world we live in. Take a look at any of the genocides of the last century, with people on one side saying "we should kill all X", people saying "no, X are fine people", and sometimes the first type of people winning and going full genocide.

FFS it happened as recently as last year in Myanmar about mass misinformation against Rohingyas, which escalated to a genocide.

What then? When the "explaining" doesn't work, do you wait for the actions to start ( taking in mind that usually when a mass amount of people start genociding another people, you can't just easily stop it)? Then, in a way, aren't you complicit in that genocide because you could have acted before but chose to just talk? That's what the Germans settled on post-WWII, that they were all complicit for allowing the Nazis to get so far ( and talking obviously got them nowhere).

I agree with you on all points. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom of thought. Actions should be punishable, words shouldn't

While your idea has some merit, there is a distinction to be made between writing a book about completely fictional scenarios involving sex with minors, and advocating sex with minors (telling people that it is fine in a piece of advocacy like on a blog).

People sometimes get these two confused, but they're not the same thing.

Someone can easily construct a fantasy world where doing that might be fine / unharmful (or in scenarios where it is harmful, it is clear to the reader that it is bad to act on), yet believe it is harmful in reality.

Between the covers of a book is another universe. In a way, imagine someone is transported to another planet which resembles your own.

There is also indeed the distinction between advocating for something and doing it. To pick a less charged example, I advocate for the legalization of most drugs (although, it doesn't mean I would support irresponsible use, much like how I wouldn't support drink driving). This doesn't necessarily mean I am secretly consuming cocaine, heroin, LSD, and all manner of other illicit drugs.

Another thing is that there is a difference between someone giving their opinions on the matter, and actively inciting someone to do it. If someone specifically instructs the reader to go out and do it, that is clearly very bad. But, I've never heard of such a thing happening, and if it did, it is more likely to be an internet troll. It is too damaging of an act.

I am of the opinion that text + anything which is digitally created is fine. Nothing which goes back to a specific abuse, although there are occasions where the victim of child abuse will chronicle their abuse in text, and I think they should be free to do so. There is also the case in Canada where someone did a retelling of an old story (IIRC Hansel and Gretel) which was more faithful to the original.

In practice, I imagine it would be quite ruinous to publish books which cover such themes under your own name, and it would be advised to use some sort of pen name.

I think the limits will certainly come down to the consequences the "words" bring with them. Without them the discussion is quite theoretical. You can safely say "everything is allowed" and then defer to another ontological realm where you cleanly separate the actions from the words.

However if someone in reality would start to smear you and especially other people like your wife or daughter with some verbal shit so they would have to suffer from it the limits of freedom of speech would look different.

This is why fiction / fantasy writings of any kind should be allowed.