You are referring to the most common definition. The are, in fact, many. The parent comment is referring to absolutist FoS. This form of FoS implies that you d

You are referring to the most common definition. The are, in fact, many. The parent comment is referring to absolutist FoS. This form of FoS implies that you do not have the right to walk away from a discussion: the speaker has "the right to be heard" and you do not have the "right to ignore." If someone were to post involuntary pornography of you online, that would be their FoS and you wouldn't be able to issue a take-down. This type of FoS is ludicrous because it sacrifices so many other freedoms to achieve purity in a single freedom. The common definition of FoS deals mainly with government censorship and fighting words. The government must step in to protect the speech of someone if they are not violating the rights of others; conversely the government must stop speech that might result in the rights of others being violated (e.g. promoting violence towards a group). This approximates the UDHR definition, which is basically the "dictionary definition" of FoS (even this definition has been amended).