Understanding property can clear up many issues.  It’s common to hear that speech should be controlled because its “malicious” or some other term used to describe it.  Speech is non-invasive.  Free speech exists because it’s a property right.  All rights are property rights.  Non-invasive actions should be legal.  Aside from a threat of bodily harm which can be vague.  It’s ethics which determines legality, not morals.

Speech is a property right.  It’s disseminating information you have in your head.  Hence, the right to free speech exists.  If that exists, the corollary right to remain silent exists.  It’s not disseminating information in your head.  No one else has a right to the information and what you do with it.  Accessing that information is invasive of property and therefore illegal.  Many times this comes in the form of compulsory testimony—threat of coercion.

It should be clear that the right to privacy is absurd.  People shouldn’t be classified by their job title.  It’s illegitimate to make distinctions like this.  Every person should be treated equally.  This doesn’t mean physicians will blabber about their patients’ medical conditions.  Part of the contract could be to remain silent about the medical condition.  Releasing that information would be a violation of the contract and punishable.

Since speech is non-invasive, there’s nothing wrong with blackmail.  All the blackmailer is doing is offering his silence for a price.  The outlawing of blackmail just increases the amount of gossip.  There’s one difference between the blackmailer and the gossip.  The blackmailer is giving the opportunity to remain silent.  If the blackmailer receives payment to remain silent then releases the secret, he’s in violation of the contract.

Speech is a property right.  Free speech exists because you have the right to your property.  This gives you the right to say things about other people even if it ruins their reputation.  Nobody owns their reputation.  Reputation is just ideas other people hold.  A bad review can ruin a restaurants reputation.  Are bad reviews to be outlawed?  What about false information?  Well, true and false information will encourage more thinking.

Reference

Murray Rothbard; The Ethics of Liberty