Those are valid points. I think those are mostly covered already under existing legal precedents for freedom of speech. I don't see any reason they should change based on the medium.
As to your point of information that can potentially do harm, who gets to be the judge of that? That seems like it can be very controversial and subjective.
So far the courts have erred on the side of only ruling against things that pretty much everyone agrees upon and I think we should stick with that.
Having objective criteria for limits to speech is important.
Otherwise we run into scenarios where people start claiming "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". At which point ALL speech is fair game.
As to your point of information that can potentially do harm, who gets to be the judge of that? That seems like it can be very controversial and subjective.
So far the courts have erred on the side of only ruling against things that pretty much everyone agrees upon and I think we should stick with that.
Having objective criteria for limits to speech is important. Otherwise we run into scenarios where people start claiming "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". At which point ALL speech is fair game.