That is a particularly tough question because it is a kind of metadiscussion. In a legal challenge or legal dispute on any other subject, rights can be discussed without discussing the framework of the rights themselves. Here we are debating the right to debate, which in itself raises questions.
What is available? What can we question in the public space? That is the question.
The challenge now is that we are witnessing a rather subjective conceptualization of what constitutes a prejudice. We do hear the word “prejudice” a lot.
I don't have an answer as to what would be an ideal framework in absolute terms, but I think we have to resist the temptation to label every disagreement or every opinion we don't like as harmful. That idea has to be rejected. If nothing else, we have to discuss the guidelines or objective criteria we can use to strike a balance between one person's freedom of expression and another person's rights.
Promoting violence, for example, is something objective. I think everyone would agree that inciting people to commit acts of violence is a limit to freedom of expression. To my mind, that would be part of the ideal.
As to subjective criteria, such as reading certain things on social media that might make a person uncomfortable or displease them, I think we should resist the idea that this is a basis upon which freedom of expression should be limited.