> For example what if a person or group is being bullied but it’s claimed under free expression? What recourse is allowed within the realms of their free expres

> For example what if a person or group is being bullied but it’s claimed under free expression? What recourse is allowed within the realms of their free expression? What happens when things escalate between parties beyond just words but physical harm? Easy. Deal with it in exactly the same way the government does. All of these edge cases, and situations, and "where is the line?" Are all questions that have been discussed for centuries, in well published court cases that have gone to the supreme court. I think the supreme court has done a good job, over the decades, of deciding what the line is for acceptable speech or not. As such, other groups/platforms/large organizations should aspire to limit themselves to the same limits and actions that the government does, even though they are not the government. > absolute freedom of speech has never really been a thing It's not, but the best guideline we have, are what the courts have decided, IMO. If the speech is legal, then allow it. If it's not, then disallow it. Or if some currently legal speech is so horrible that you think it should be disallowed, then go through the normal legal process, of making a law, and subject it to the appeals process, constitutional review, and all the checks and balances that go along with making speech illegal.