That is of course not taking into account the direct physical harm of another.
"This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality
If this be the case , why does it seem that there is a vehement segregation against people whom simply have different opinions. For example a "holocast denier" ( I am using this as a example because, in Europe , if you deny this event you can go to jail ) REF.
Article 19. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Another recent case was Brendan Eich stand on the opposition to gay marriage Which lead to a massive outcry and his eventual resignation from mozilla. And now Dolce and Gabbana , seem to be on the wrong side of the freedom of expression.
I am not sure if i am going too far with this, but for the sake of argument. Take a racist. Yes , hating someone because of their skin color and preconceived ideas, is silly (to put it mildly) . However if one does not act on this idea in a way that then infringes on the rights of that other person , is it wrong?
Are our "freedoms" more variables based on a general consensus for a certain period in time, or are they considered absolute ? And why is there passionate hostility towards opposite viewpoints ,especially when the viewpoints are passive in nature?