Just to continue the conversation, if you're interested (I don't think the OP was able to tolerate opposing viewpoints):
Even though one example you mentioned is more of a call to action, it should still be protected. Just think back to the civil rights era in this country. There was plenty of call to action (including 'illegal' action, such as violating segregation laws). And there was a time in this country when the people who opposed that kind of action were very much in power. Should that speech have been less protected, just because it called for action?
I think things get too dicey when you're limiting the speech itself, and the result hinges far too much on who is in power, popular opinion at the time, etc. It's very easily abused. Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, the best place to draw it in most cases is at action. In the vast majority of instances, with very rare exception, I favor protecting the ability of the citizen to express her thoughts. If someone acts in a way that can and should be prosecuted, then that's where efforts should be concentrated. The good of free speech far outweigh the negatives of having some truly bad people engaging in it.