1. Direct, obvious harm beyond "my feelings were upset."

2. Actually, this isn't illegal in a lot of places.

3. Direct, obvious harm beyond "my feelings were upset."

Should we ever consider broad societal harm, or just focus on individual harm? It's to me just short sighted to only consider the later.

Do you actually believe that the issue with porn is that it "upsets people's feelings"?

Mostly the principle that direct, tangible, and irreparable harm is being done by the speech. I called these "hairy" exactly because they are less clear-cut than most cases. The line between satire or speculation and slander, for example, can be kind of notoriously hard to draw, many "doxxing" incidents mostly involve finding already-public information, and incitement to violence is pretty difficult to demonstrate in a satisfying way

The reason I bring up these examples is that they are what I consider the edge cases of freedom of expression. There are genuinely difficult tradeoffs between values, but allowing stuff that bothers some people to be published is not one of them