It's just a joke, bro, can't we even make a joke anymore? So much for the tolerant right. 

Depends. If you instigate murder and genocide, imo, you're equally accomplice in crime. It's like gang leaders, the might not be the one directly inflicting the harm, but if they're are commanding and instigating it they should be punished equally

The politician in question haven't done something as extreme I believe, but it happened with a pastor last year in Brazil. He instigated his devotes to attack and kill gay people impling since God can no longer do that it's time for christians to deal with the LGBT, this absolutely should be punished as hate crime even if it's still only an idea 

When it comes to dehumanizing other people, he was one of the best.

So what are you suggesting? Who would decide where to lay the boundaries other then the people collectively themselves?

How do people decide those boundaries other then listing to idea's and make up their mind? If not privy to all idea's, how to make a balanced judgement call?

Yes the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany came to power by popular vote. Why? Because the competition did not have the more convincing messages and messaging to solve the economic troubles of a demoralized Germany at the time. Nobody had a fortune teller at hand prior to those elections to know what it would end up as.

In retrospect, who would have needed to decide that the Nazi party at the time should be expelled from the elections or not given space to campaign? Remove them from the people's choice with no crystal ball at hand?

Yes, sometimes democratic processes can go very wrong. But it is the least flawed system with the hope of the best outcome. 

Personally I am against any kind of violence, political or non-political, the only cases where it can remotely be justified, is when it is absolutely needed to prevent an even worse act of violence, sometimes in war or law-enforcement. You can be a child rapist serial killer, and I would still be against your execution. Charlie Kirk was not an acute threat to anyone, so the killing was reprehensible.

That being said, just because Charlie Kirk was the victim of this heinous act, doesn't mean we should white-wash his legacy and character. He was an absolute asshole, a savage, republican pundit, professional liar for his party, at least partial white-nationalist, who repeatedly refused to take a stance against political violence when it was targeted his opponents, often lying about it, or mocked the victims. Lucca posted on page 10 a longer list of sick things the guy has said in the past, and that's only scratching the surface. To add to the list he has claimed January 6th was done by Antifa and he has said that he wants public executions to come back and that children should be forced to see them. Often called a free speech warrior by the right, he was 100 % supportive of arresting pro-palestine protesters.
The fact that his opinions were viewed as even remotely mainstream says nothing positive about him, but all about the complete moral collapse that has happened to his country.

Even the outright far-right white nationalists like Nick Fuentes I can have more respect for than Charlie Kirk, because at least they are up-front about the terrible things they believe in. No lying about supporting free speech, no gaslighting about January 6th needed there.

iTs JuSt A jOkE bRo - in a week or so, it would be funny.  But not on the same day as his murder.

Also right wing?  Keep up son: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9611642

The answer might be counter intuitive, but the best way to protect democracy is really define boundaries for speech and vote. I'm not suggesting, those boundaries already exists for countries with some degree of advanced legislation

Some of those boundaries are often described in constitution. In a perfect democracy with free speech you could vote for states to separate themselves from the federal government, which could lead to a shit tons of issues 

How to solve it? One of the ways is to put in an entrentchment clause (don't know if there is a direct English term for it, needed to google it in portuguese is clausula petrea) that as long the constitution stands the union is not dismemberable. It might not be criminal to propagate the idea your state/community could be free, but in practice you will need to first dissolve the constitution which on itself needs a huge part of the society agreeing and can be a headache for any politician to propose 

We can do the same for rights we believe to be inalienable (like human rights), so include them in the list of free speech exclusion i.e. criminalize saying people needs to die or suffer because they were born with a different skin color

None of those things are so easy or decide in freestyle. So who decides where lands the limits you ask? It's ultimate ourselves who set boundaries, that's politics in practice. Hence, every democracy will have of course some degree of imperfection

You for once thinks it's okay to everyone say whatever they want

In other hand, I feel speech should be limited, because free speech is dangerous 

We will vote, and ultimately politicians will choose based in the boundaries of the constitution and existing laws 

Deleted.

There's an old saying:  If you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything.

You don't like the guy; that's fine.  But just leave it until the dust has settled.

If you don't want to offer condolences, then why do you feel the need to say anything at all?  Is your ego that big that you think everyone needs to hear you?

You have the rest of your life to criticise him, so why not show the humanity you claim to have and leave it a week.

If free speech is a thing we are actually supposed to believe in, we should be allowed - and ENCOURAGED - to call what we view as a Nazi a Nazi. I actually think this talking point about the Nazi label being used to dehumanise political rivals in itself is an act of dehumanising. Lets not forget that millions and millions of Germans were actually Nazis. These were human beings too, that's a sad realization we all have to come to terms with. Sometimes human beings support deplorable things, and that should and must always be pointed out.
Now, what one should not do is call someone a Nazi, if they do not believe said person is a Nazi. This is still different to comparing someones ideology to Nazism, a lot of parallels can be drawn between MAGA and the 30's Nazi movement, so it makes sense to compare without saying they are the same. A stronger parallel can be drawn to fascism, MAGA can certainly be called a fascistic movement under the most conventional definitions of the word. There are important differences between the Nazism and Fascism of the 30s and 40s and the MAGA movement of today of course, unfortunately most of the differences are not in MAGAs favour. Hitler and Mussolini were both much more up front about what they believed in and planned to achieve, unlike Trump they didn't claim to be pro-democracy before getting power, and then acted dictatorial afterwards, they were honest about that. They also weren't as overtly anti-expertise and anti-intellectualism as the MAGA movement.

That said, it is incorrect calling Charlie Kirk a nazi, though not necessarily incorrect to compare some of his ideas to that movement. It is not incorrect to call him a fascist, by common definitions. It is incorrect calling him a conservative (what did he want to conserve? Not the key institutions of modern western societies at least).