The point is that you're now defending a completely different position from "Free speech is absolute." Determining what should count as "an actual crime or harm", how it can be proven, and so on, is pretty much the entirety of the problem you were claiming to have solved.

Free speech doesn't include the freedom to use speech to do illegal harms (that are themselves, not speech).

In other words, "Speech + Offense" is prosecutable, for illegal "Offense".

You don't get a hall pass to use speech to commit a crime, and not be culpable for the crime.

Fraud, libel, harassment, giving false testimony in court, colluding with competitors to artificially increase prices, broadcasting a copyright work, signing your name (just your name!) to an illegal contract, etc. all may involve speech, but the offense is defined by the non-speech functional impact.

Convincing someone to kill someone for you is not legal, because murder is not legal.

People generally have to prove that the speech was intentionally or recklessly geared to cause harm to others.

Although many cases may be clear, there isn't a mathematical separation between the two, so we have courts and precedence, and further reviews, as the practical means of drawing the line.

And that is true for the vast majority of laws and rights.