Harassment is an action beyond speech. It's one thing to speak, it's another thing to take a way someone's right to get away from you.
Same with the "shouting fire in a crowded theater". It's not the shouting, it the harm by deception. Same with fraud. It's not the speaking, it's the theft by deception. Defamation, etc.
Some words have consequences, but the words themselves are not the illegal act, just the means.
It's always going to be a sticky distinction, but it's an important one to make.
Exactly
if there's borderless freedom of speech, the intention of speech would always be up to individual interpretation, therefore being unpunishable to an extent, no?
Everything always is up for interpretation. Ultimately your local court will do the final interpretation.
the moment you start interpreting freedom and get a court involved is when it stops being freedom
Not sure what you mean by this
you are intervening in someone's freedom of speech by a court
therefore it is not free anymore
you are adding an asterisk to it
freedom of speech is a consequenceless ability to speak regardless of tone, intention and words
would you define it differently?
I’m not adding anything. Freedom of speech doesn’t excuse you from the laws your society deemed necessary to prevent certain behavior. But speech alone doesn’t necessitate action unless under context of repeated behavior that is specifically outlawed.
