Would you agree that "when those jokes are actually harmful" is considered to be a subjective matter to some people?
I do agree with the notion that certain types of hate speech and even just jokes that have the effect of dehumanizing a group or that make that group into a joke can lead to stochastic terrorism (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stochastic_terrorism) - what I think you are describing.
However, my point is that inevitably those wielding the power to shape the alignment / the rules can do so in a way that seems great to them and seems to prevent violence from their POV but to another person fails to do so. Or their own implicit bias could subconsciously blind them to the suffering of some niche group they don't care about.
If your simple metric is - any speech which could incite violence is unacceptable - that's definitely better than what we often hear as a rule of thumb, but even then people's biases affect how they go about measuring or accomplishing that.
I do agree with the notion that certain types of hate speech and even just jokes that have the effect of dehumanizing a group or that make that group into a joke can lead to stochastic terrorism (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stochastic_terrorism) - what I think you are describing.
However, my point is that inevitably those wielding the power to shape the alignment / the rules can do so in a way that seems great to them and seems to prevent violence from their POV but to another person fails to do so. Or their own implicit bias could subconsciously blind them to the suffering of some niche group they don't care about.
If your simple metric is - any speech which could incite violence is unacceptable - that's definitely better than what we often hear as a rule of thumb, but even then people's biases affect how they go about measuring or accomplishing that.