>Is it now your claim that one only enjoys freedom of opinion if the powers that be consider the opinion, or the means by which they are expressed, not harmful?

>Is it now your claim that one only enjoys freedom of opinion if the powers that be consider the opinion, or the means by which they are expressed, not harmful? In a roundabout way, yes. But it is not left to "the powers that be", but a process involving evidence and rigorous reasoning. It's also important to distinguish "mere hurts" from harms. Some potential "harms" we may argue should be prioritized lower than free speech, much in the same way the potential harms of a drunk person on others are prioritized lower than the right to drink (or even produce) alcohol. You pointed this out yourself; there are many ways to express many opinions, but their expressions can run up against other rights, or at least cause other harms. It's a balancing act, not a settled question. I may also trust the state more to recognize the harm of killing than I trust it to recognize the harm of some other forms of expression. "Oh, so you believe this now?" isn't a gotcha in a complex process where many different interests need to be considered, and all of us have different views on what society should look like. The law on murder in most countries is extremely complex, with various tiers and problems. Even that is up for debate - England and Wales has a much criticized "mandatory life sentence" and pretty much one tier of murder. So no, I don't have the answers, but good-faith discussions may bring us closer.