It isn't binary - magnitude, intent, and frequency matter. "I did not have sex with that woman" doesn't threaten democracy. "The election was rigged." does.

How about "Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election"?

Nobody said that though. No sitting president tried to use it to topple the government. No political party made it the central plank in their platform. Degree matters.

People absolutely did say that and tried to connect that with the election being illegitimate and took it much further for much longer than a few election audits.

So what you're saying is that whatever you or your party claims "threatens democracy" -- justified with some vague and arbitrary standards you just invented and that you judge -- is what threatens democracy. And anything anybody else thinks is wrong.

And by the way questioning election integrity and voicing concerns about that is not "threatening democracy" so that's just not some fundamental truth you've stumbled upon there either, other people can disagree about that. If your democracy is threatened by people voicing their concern about election procedures and results and must silence them to function, then it's not really much of a democracy.

What about people concerned about voter suppression or gerrymandering or whatever? Do we need to silence them too? I'm sure you're going to come up with some other vague handwaving as to why those don't meet your criteria for silencing your political opponents.

So now you see why pro-free-speech people don't like these kind of restrictions, because they can and are abused.