Some have suggested one place a line can be drawn: It's always OK to "attack" an "idea" but never to "attack" an individual.

And others have suggested different lines or suggested that certain ideas fundamentally attack individuals by their very nature.

I've never met an actual free speech absolutist. I've just met people who tolerate certain forms of hate speech.

But again, there's nothing that makes this line objectively better than any other. It makes sense to me, even though it's kind of vague — but the point is that it's still subjective.

Can you give an example of what you would consider an "objective statement" in a legal context? I daresay no such thing can exist.