I would argue both you and GP are correct. Danger is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm sure the Pope considered Galileo's speech to be a danger, at the very least to the religious dogma of the day.
Sure, there may be clear cut examples when speech is directly dangerous, such as when inciting some group to harm some other group "for no reason".
The problem, though, arises when the situation isn't as clear and when the danger is actually to some people's privilege. To come back to the pope's example: what if some scientist can prove God doesn't exist and / or that the Pope is an impostor? That's clearly dangerous for the Pope. It could be argued that it might even be dangerous for the society, suppose this could generate some unrest. But maybe this could usher in a new era where something else is possible. Should that speech be banned?
I'm sure the Pope considered Galileo's speech to be a danger, at the very least to the religious dogma of the day.
Sure, there may be clear cut examples when speech is directly dangerous, such as when inciting some group to harm some other group "for no reason".
The problem, though, arises when the situation isn't as clear and when the danger is actually to some people's privilege. To come back to the pope's example: what if some scientist can prove God doesn't exist and / or that the Pope is an impostor? That's clearly dangerous for the Pope. It could be argued that it might even be dangerous for the society, suppose this could generate some unrest. But maybe this could usher in a new era where something else is possible. Should that speech be banned?