What are philosophical reasons for approving of freedom of speech but not of freedom of deeds? If teasing the others by speech is allowed, why not by deeds? If freedom of deeds is wrong, then why approving of freedom of speech? If both can cause disasters, then why distinguish between them? To me being teased by words seems much more sever than being teased physically. The effects of the latter may recover soon, but one may not recover from the effects of the first. Is it only my opinion that freedom of speech (without any limits) is as wrong as freedom of deeds (without any limits) or have there been philosophical attempts to prove the same?
There is no philosophical reasoning to approve one and not the other - and I question whether or not such schizophrenic philosophers even exist. Furthermore, both the freedom of speech and the "freedom of deeds" - even in the most liberal circles - have been generally governed by the harm principle in their seminal states. Ergo, free speech does not mean that saying anything anywhere is permitted, just how the concept of liberty or a free society doesn't mean you can go around killing people. I suggest you read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty to familiarize yourself with the concessions of Mill's staunch liberal position.
- Opinion in Commonwealth v. Joseph D. Leis, Justice Jacob J. Spiegel
- Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, Charles R. Lawrence III
- Corry v. Stanford University, The Superior Court of California
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, The Supreme Court of the United States
Note that I use the term "liberal" in the context of philosophical liberalism, and not in any political sense.
There Is No Clear Distinction Between Speaking and Doing
Speaking is an action, an action is a deed.
Doing something from one's mouth and not from hands is still an action. Otherwise all the quadrupeds would have died, you see they don't eat with hands and they must eat to live.
Speaking is a subset of deeds. All speaking is an action, not all actions are speaking.
Matter of Freedom
As a principle, how much freedom is given to one's actions must depend on the impact.
A president for example shouldn't be allowed to start a nuclear war on his own. There have to be checks, hindrances and assistances needed from others for such a high impact action.
Saying something on media is usually more impactful than saying something in private, as long as the speaker is an average person. Due to high number of audience many more are likely to join a cause. This is how its more impactful and this is why its must be more restrained.
A thing said by a leader is more impactful than a thing said by any of his followers. A simple hint or complain by a leader can prompt his followers to hurt someone even though the leader never explicitly tell them to hurt.
There are words that hurt more than other words. Obscene remarks about one's mother or daughter or sister do make people more angry, to the extent of momentarily losing one's mind, than say a silly joke on one's clothings. Therefore, the former words must be more restricted than the latter.
To restrict from repeated action punishment must be given. If there are no apparent consequences of one's actions he will continue to do so.
High impact actions must be more restricted than low impact actions.
Words may or may not have more impact than deeds. It depends on who is speaking to whom, what is spoken and in what situation. All of these 4 ws must be taken into account when putting restrictions on deeds and words.
What Buddhism has to say about speech
The Noble Eightfold Path
3. Right speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him to cause discord or harm their relationship; abstaining from false speech, abstaining from slanderous speech, abstaining from harsh speech, and abstaining from idle chatter.
The above from Nobel Eightfold Path
Also, vide Sammavaca