What are the principles governing the exceptions you listed (slander, doxxing, incitement)?

1. Direct, obvious harm beyond "my feelings were upset."

2. Actually, this isn't illegal in a lot of places.

3. Direct, obvious harm beyond "my feelings were upset."

	▲	sergiogjr 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Should we ever consider broad societal harm, or just focus on individual harm? It's to me just short sighted to only consider the later.
	▲	Grustaf 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Do you actually believe that the issue with porn is that it "upsets people's feelings"?

▲

advael 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Mostly the principle that direct, tangible, and irreparable harm is being done by the speech. I called these "hairy" exactly because they are less clear-cut than most cases. The line between satire or speculation and slander, for example, can be kind of notoriously hard to draw, many "doxxing" incidents mostly involve finding already-public information, and incitement to violence is pretty difficult to demonstrate in a satisfying way

The reason I bring up these examples is that they are what I consider the edge cases of freedom of expression. There are genuinely difficult tradeoffs between values, but allowing stuff that bothers some people to be published is not one of them