I don't think there is a conflict between a right for absolute speech (on a practical level) and being held responsible for direct and foreseeable harm without a mitigating reason.
I.e. nobody can shut your mouth, or stop you from speaking, but there can still be consequences if your speech is directly aimed at unjustifiable harassment.
For instance, simply making the video available on a web site would be protected speech (no restriction on that) - assuming no other law was conflicted (copyright, etc.) But going out of one's way to push the speech to those it harms, and on services that prohibit it, creates a problem independent of the freedom to simply speak/publish.
Likewise, you can publish technical secrets you were given under a nondisclosure agreement, but will be prosecuted civilly and possibly criminally (depending on circumstances) for the damage you have done to intellectual property value.
You can claim anything you want for some product, but expect to pay for it legally if you are defrauding people.
You can publish any code you want, source or object code, but expect to pay the consequences if you are publishing code that doesn't belong to you, or violating an open source license by only publishing in one form, without providing the required form, or without proper attribution.
Etc.
For all those cases, nobody limits your speech, but direct consequences of your speech can still result in enforcement action.
You don't have rights that prevent you from hearing things you dislike, things you don't want to hear, or things you find offensive. But you absolutely have protections against repeated harassment.
Restraining order.
And in this case, it should be issued against any Does that engage in the activity.
Rights are best when fundamental and few. Even then it takes a lot of thought to balance between them.
If you start creating a long list of rights then the complexity of balancing all the areas of contradiction will be so many that inevitably an elite will simply use the plethora of rights/contradictions to rationalize getting their way.
In most important things, we need to keep boiling down the principles to as few as possible to explain/perform as needed.
I.e. nobody can shut your mouth, or stop you from speaking, but there can still be consequences if your speech is directly aimed at unjustifiable harassment.
For instance, simply making the video available on a web site would be protected speech (no restriction on that) - assuming no other law was conflicted (copyright, etc.) But going out of one's way to push the speech to those it harms, and on services that prohibit it, creates a problem independent of the freedom to simply speak/publish.
Likewise, you can publish technical secrets you were given under a nondisclosure agreement, but will be prosecuted civilly and possibly criminally (depending on circumstances) for the damage you have done to intellectual property value.
You can claim anything you want for some product, but expect to pay for it legally if you are defrauding people.
You can publish any code you want, source or object code, but expect to pay the consequences if you are publishing code that doesn't belong to you, or violating an open source license by only publishing in one form, without providing the required form, or without proper attribution.
Etc.
For all those cases, nobody limits your speech, but direct consequences of your speech can still result in enforcement action.