You have not yet entered any of the discussions you have started.

In this one, you assume the only purpose of 'freedom of speech' is to avoid conflict. That is something one might argue if convinced that was true.

What is your argument for this opinion?

The notion of “incitement” is magical thinking. Such a view of the nature of man and expression represents an overestimation of the power of speech. This is also true with any assumption like the one that expression can “bring about change”, even if the most rousing homily could never move a feather, let alone anything of greater significance.

We ought not to censor people for the simple reason we do not need to. We control speech, not the other way around.

Speech controls us as well. To state otherwise is, I think, an underestimation of the power of speech.
If we think of the prague structuralism and/or Ferdinand de Saussure, we learn, that
human beings conceive their world partly through language. In fact, one of the primary functions of
speech, in linguistics, is the cognitive function, which enables us to think and formulate our thoughts more clearly and precisely.
One must not forget, that any revolution, for better or for worse has started with an idea or ideology that was delivered by speech.
It is right, that no word can make a feather move, but it can move hearts and minds within the realm of human social interaction. And the notion of something like "incitement" heavily or rather fully concerns the "human
realm".

The true agents within human interaction, I would argue, are our minds, which are almost entirely influenced by outside values brought into them. Words cannot make a feather move, but a touched heart and a well instructed (through speech) mind, will makeit fly in no time. (Of course, outside of the metaphor, almost anybody is able to make it fly, but let`s say, for the sake of the argument)

Concerning the actual point of discussion, there seems to be a problem of quantifying what harm an opinion is able to cause, within the political-societal framework, and at which point the regulatory institution ought to intervene. I think in order to be able to discuss the problem properly, one would have to define the dimensions of "incitement". Mill himself was, though advocating freedom of speech rather profoundly, against incitement or "spoiling the youth". He just might define those terms differently
to you.

I propose, that preventing a man from speaking to a crowd with hay forks and torches in front of the mayors house about the recent misconduct of the mayor (almost exactly Mills example) is no threat to public discourse. I would say, incitement begins, where violent action might be expected as the direct result of speech. Of course, this is the extreme end of incitement, and the other end still needs to be defined.

Freedom of expression should be limited and restricted because if it is not, it defeats an important point of freedom expression. — Vishagan

Freedom of the expression of a consciousness that doesn't belong to you? The proposition is illogical, asymmetrical, irrational, and immoral. What happens to you when people who don't value free expression also adopt my position here? Are you going to be allowed to "freely express?" Does such a standard make sense when the act of inhibiting free expression, is in fact the act of a free expression itself on the part of the person(s) doing the inhibiting, thereby rendering their actions as self contradictory? What is expression, by the by? Is that something limits are set to by someone other than free expressor who has defined the term for them?

Freedom of expression, as expressed by any person who is not you, should be the last thing on your mind, unless it directly involves the violation of your own free expression.

One of the purpose of expression, is to bring about change — Vishagan

No, it isn't. Expression is the self-generated functions of the brain for purposes of achieving, predominantly, individual homeostasis. Such is the case with all known systems in the universe, including all biological ones, which is what you and I are: Systems designed by the systems of the universe, programmed to express behaviors that achieve, and or, maximize homeostasis/equilibrium. This "change" garbage is nothing more than a notion that is used to inspire the emotionally manipulable into implementing force against their fellow humans to achieve their own homeostasis by the effort of people who are not themselves. All the better if such notions allow for the villain doing the convincing to walk away with his hands clean, while yours are drenched in blood (see Hitler and Stalin).

change can only be brought about or prevented using violence than using argument or persuasion. — Vishagan

No, that is what eradicates positive change, and ensures centuries of devestation beyond measure. This proposition has been elemental in ensuring the most heinous, despicable, depraved, immoral, and anti-human atrocities in the history of Human Kind. And boy are the people who manipulate people into believing as much thrilled to have you here regurgitating it. Change is something that I will decide for myself, thank you. Go change yourself.

The Fact that change could be brought about without the need for violence is an important tenet of freedom of expression. — Vishagan

Violence is, by definition, the forceful limitation placed on free exchange. To say that one presupposes the other, is like saying water presupposes oil. They are mutually exclusive.

However if freedom of expression includes speech inciting violence — Vishagan

No, that's just what the law is. Incitement to violence is a non-argument. If you are so weak-minded as to be convinced to use the violation of free expression against those who are not violating yours, each of you should be cast out of society until it is clear that you are sufficiently equipped to not violate external Human Consciousness because the guy preaching change via carnage told you to do so. The person doing the convincing should publicly debated and annihilated by philosophy, and thereafter ostracized for being a pethetic weasel. That's why our liberals won't debate anyone publicly, they don't want you to hear them defend themselves against reason. It's also why the controllers don't teach philosophy in public schools, wouldn't want you to be equipped with the arguments that I am, and present them before a live studio audience, not good for homeostasis.

I think therefore judging by the fact that freedom of speech is a way to avoid violence, then freedom of speech that includes the promotion of violence is contradictory and less justifiable. — Vishagan

The proposition that one can get away with promoting the violation of free expression (violence), by employing free expression, without anybody calling it out, is absurd to me. It is literally the action of freely expressing that the free expression of other people needs to be violated, so that the one making the proposition can express with greater freedom, and to do so at the expense of the free expression of others. And all they have to do to achieve this proposition in action, is convince a bunch of people that it is somehow justified, which is very easy when everyone is dumb, and frowns upon philosophy.