Perhaps, but it's still pure speech.

Couldn't you make exactly the same argument about trying to get someone killed? Getting someone fired isn't getting them killed, of course, but it's still significant harm. It is the sort of thing that not long ago would have been considered outrageous harassment and mob behavior. It's astonishing how much the goalposts have moved, and how people are pretending or not noticing that this is a major shift in standards.

Mob rule is assembly. Decisions have consequences and are action.

Speech always has consequences (that's rather the point of both speech in general, and the entire concept of free speech in particular: if it had no consequences, there’d be no reason to protect it), and is always a subset of action. Assembly is inseparable from speech which is why, lest the flimsy excuse that a thing is one rather than the other be used to justify a ban, it's wrapped up along with all the other speech-equivalent expressive rights in the first amendment.

Some speech is not protected, some speech is judged harshly, all along spectrums. Speech doesn't exist in a vacuum and may be criminal, inorderly, trollish, moderated away, unheard, misinterpreted, untruthful, etc. If there are better approaches, people should be steered in better directions. Sometimes a jolt is needed, but continued bullying is usually on the bully. A bully may also be bullied, but the outcome is rarely educational since some people don't bother to care. Besides, bullying works against socializing.

Just action need to follow some due process. Mob rule becomes medieval. Even because modern technology platforms enable despicable behaviour, which speech is part of, does not necessarily protect because of free speech. Freedoms to hurt others need be limited.

When people lose interest in the whole, only to fancy duality, there's no dialogue happening, only escalation.

Speech doesn't imply much consequence beyond enlightenment, when people learn to listen and appreciate diversity.

Speech seems worthless compared to right action. Principles and freedoms mean nothing in isolation.

> Some speech is not protected, some speech is judged harshly, all along spectrum

The claim I was addressing from upthread is not “these people are not engaging in goodspeak” but “these people are not speaking”, so as true as that may be it is not relevant to the discussion.

Seems like you’re making a pointless semantic debate. “Speech” in an ethical philosophical context is “expressing ideas”. Threats are not this because the intent is to intimidate or coerce somebody. To your point, there is a definition of the word “speech” that means something like “any communication at all”, but of course that’s what precisely no one is talking about in a debate about free speech.