It seems that a recurring theme when exploring the edges of freedom of speech is that many folks believe that since speech can influence the thoughts and actions of those who consume it, we should consider second and third order effects of speech to be harm for which the original speaker is responsible.

I don't see how anyone can fit that concept into a workable framework that doesn't devolve to the point at which saying mean or critical things is equated to violence because hurting someone's feelings is harmful.