[happyopossum]

> Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right?

Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others.

[icedistilled]

>"Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others."

Nope, that is trivially wrong with the obvious counter examples being slander and libel.

[int_19h]

Which is why they're excluded from the definition of free speech pretty much everywhere?

[morjom]

Couldn't "psychological harm/turmoil" fit somewhere in there aswell? Verbal abuse etc.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

generally speaking that would fall under harassment.