True, but you have to draw a line somewhere. The U.S. is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech but even there the line in the sand is calls for violence.
replyIn US law, there are a lot more lines in the sand than violence. Take for example price coordination between competitors, or fraudulent financially material statements posted to twitter, libel & slander, defamation, etc.
replyIf we're going with "free speech absolutism" outside the law, one notable "free speech absolutist" has drawn the line at sharing publicly-available info on a billionaire's private jet's comings and goings.
> As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.
reply> you have to draw a line somewhere.
So the entire subject is now moot, I gather.
Touché.
replyperhaps you have an incorrect understanding of what freedom of speech is? it is not "everything you do is a form of speech, and freedom of speech must be absolute, therefore everything is allowed".
replya free speech absolutist would say that expression may not be prohibited or punished because of the idea, opinion, belief, argument, or message it communicates, but that using speech as a mechanism to commit an independently harmful act does not shield one from consequences.