>>6436967>words aren't actionsExactly, so I don't see the relevance of your childhood rhyme. Claiming words cannot do injury to others means nothing. Clearly they can. The defence of free speech doesn't rest on the assumption that words cannot injure, but on the assumption that rigorous debate is more important than protecting feelings.
>do you know the definition of harm ?No, I haven't memorised the dictionary definition of even a single word.
