I think the first shouldn't fall under a free speech debate; what should be debated is whether any legislation is required. In the back of their minds, most people probably know it doesn't fall under that, so I think that it is something that can largely be settled in a civil suit unless someone is killed.
As for inciting violence, that is unfortunately something that I find to be too open to interpretation.
Say, if someone said that they personally did not believe Charlottesville was a terror attack, that could be interpreted as a call for violence because they want others to think that sort of thing is ok.
If someone said they personally do not agree with the Black Lives Matter movement, that could be interpreted as a call to violence against black people.
If someone said they personally do not agree with the entirety of the #metoo campaign, that could be interpreted as a call to violence against women.
It's not any of those; it's just an opinion that can be discussed or debated. But if someone interprets it that way, then the dissenting opinion can be silenced by saying they were inciting violence.
Again, these are just my opinions.
I don't think any of those examples could, in good faith, be interpreted as a call to violence. When I said call to violence, I meant saying things that literally incite a mob or rile people up in a way that leads to things like rioting or lynching. Disagreeing with a group or even condoning violence against a group is different (though the latter is pretty gross and any private institution would be justified in taking issue with it). Essentially, promoting or condoning hateful ideas is protected in public, and perhaps one might agree or disagree with that. But a call to violent action is in a similar vein to causing a mass panic. To ensure the safety of the citizens, it's not unreasonable to classify a rallying call to hurt a group or specific person as being dangerous to public safety. But since there's a lot under the umbrella of "hate speech", it would be difficult to justify banning all hate speech, since some of that is just hateful rather than actively violent. Hate speech alone can't really be banned, but there's no reason that trying to get a mob to destroy property or hurt people should be protected.