Why freedom of speech but not freedom to physically injure?

i wasn't trying to be argumentative, but if you're going to call me blatantly stupid for going by the dictionary definition of violence rather than making some silly emotional response, i'll just have to put this up there:

vi·o·lence

  /ˈvaɪələns/ Show Spelled[vahy-uh-luhns] Show IPA
noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

4. a violent act or proceeding.

5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

 

speaking for myself, i would find a world in which everyone was free to injur each other to their hearts content, even more annoying and frustrating then the one we already do. this would so totally interfere with the all of the kinds of things i do find interesting and gratifying.

 

let me put it this way. if I got in a fight with every person who talked shit to me I would have been in over 400 fights by now maybe even more that was just a guess.

 

I am not really sure why this is even a question or a debate.

That we may have freedom of speech it does not even under existing laws allow for the acting out or violence against another using that as a defense.

Two separate issues.

I may have the right to disagree with what you say or think but I do not have the right to cause you physical harm or incite others to do so based upon what I think.

 

I would straight up love to be able to punch people who bother me without suffering moral or legal consequences.

That's probably a bit based on my physical prowess though. Not that I'm a bad ass... I am; but I wouldn't want the same sort of standard to apply when I was 60 and still as sarcastic as I am.