[slg]

>I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as... intimate recordings of people taken without consent

Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as speech? Can the government make it illegal for me to share a photo that a government official thinks makes them look ugly? What about a photo of an official committing a crime? What if that photo was taken somewhere private and without their consent? Or what if it was actually an "intimate recordings of people taken without consent", but one of the people involved was the president and they were recorded in a drug fueled fling with a prostitute? Should publishing that be illegal?

How can you define speech so that it can be applied consistently to specific questions like this? Odds are you'll end up with a definition so full of nuances and caveats that the "absolutist" part of the term is rendered meaningless.

[mitthrowaway2]

Keep in mind that in my comment, I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms", and you'd still be open to legal action by harmed parties if you defame them. So I think we can pretty reasonably answer your questions from that standpoint, with the fairly non-controversial addendum that airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.

[slg]

>I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms"...airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.

Is a free press not part of free speech? Are incriminating photos only protected speech in a court, but not when published in a newspaper?

I'm just trying to underline that people refuse to recognize the difficulty translating the philosophical discussion of free speech into the complexities of legal definitions. And "free speech absolutists" tend to only live in the philosophical sphere.