[Pyramus]

From what I've learned here on HN someone who thinks that "free speech" is absolute - their right to free speech outshines the personal rights of others. So instead of discussing where my rights end and your rights start, they will argue that no line should be drawn.

In addition, from what I understand, they seem to think that democracy is a consequence of "free speech", not the other way around.

[theultdev]

How does free speech infringe on other's rights?

If you include spam, well that's not speech, usually not even by humans. Spam is a form of censorship by [D]DoS.

If you include threats, well that's an action, not speech, and it's illegal, because of the action.

[Pyramus]

Not sure I understand your post, both spam and threats are speech (at least in the US), so maybe something was lost in translation?

Here are some of the limits of free speech in the US:

> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...

And here some examples from Germany (translated via DeepL):

> the protection of personal honour against insult or defamation, the disclosure of information classified as secret, the limits of morality and the protection of minors, the limits of public safety, unfair competition by discrediting the goods or services of a competitor, the unauthorised disclosure of copyrighted information, racial discrimination

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinungsfreiheit#Grenzen_(Schr...

[cmh89]

Threats are by definition not an action.