Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Laws don’t work, which is why we need more laws” is quite an argument.
Me: “there isn’t enough done to protect dissenting voices” You: “so we should do nothing and give them up to the lynch mob, laws don’t work anyway, this is what I call freedom of speech but not from consequences”
Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech.
On one hand, you have the idea of criminalizing violent responses to unpopular speech. This is completely superfluous; we already criminalize violence, what will adding another law do, really? The theory might be that it'll dissuade action, but someone furious enough to literally lynch their neighbor over speech isn't rationally balancing the pros and cons. "I strongly disapprove of this and therefore I want whoever does it to be locked up forever" might feel viscerally good, but we know it's a bad way to run a country.
On the other hand, attempting to protect people from non-violent responses involves the suppression of speech based on popularity. You might have the right to say whatever you want, but I also have the right to tell you exactly how I feel about that. You can't abridge my legal right to say that because I happen to be in the majority any more than you can suppress my speech if I was in the minority. And if my push-back to your original speech is noxious in its own right, then maybe I'll suffer social consequences for my own speech, as is completely fair.
Oh, and remember that any tool you give the government might be abused. We're already seeing local cities trying to pass "hate speech" laws against anti-cop sentiment, which is probably not what the original authors had in mind. The path between "we need to suppress the mob" and "my political opponents are a mob and must be suppressed" is very straight and very short.