You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech" and once that happens the term has lost all meaning.

I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).

>I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as... intimate recordings of people taken without consent

Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as speech? Can the government make it illegal for me to share a photo that a government official thinks makes them look ugly? What about a photo of an official committing a crime? What if that photo was taken somewhere private and without their consent? Or what if it was actually an "intimate recordings of people taken without consent", but one of the people involved was the president and they were recorded in a drug fueled fling with a prostitute? Should publishing that be illegal?

How can you define speech so that it can be applied consistently to specific questions like this? Odds are you'll end up with a definition so full of nuances and caveats that the "absolutist" part of the term is rendered meaningless.

Keep in mind that in my comment, I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms", and you'd still be open to legal action by harmed parties if you defame them. So I think we can pretty reasonably answer your questions from that standpoint, with the fairly non-controversial addendum that airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.

>I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms"...airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.

Is a free press not part of free speech? Are incriminating photos only protected speech in a court, but not when published in a newspaper?

I'm just trying to underline that people refuse to recognize the difficulty translating the philosophical discussion of free speech into the complexities of legal definitions. And "free speech absolutists" tend to only live in the philosophical sphere.