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.