The definition cannot be reduced to an Internet aphorism, and such an aphorism could never be just. Real human interactions are complicated, and real law will always revolve around balancing conflicting rights.
“Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.”
> The definition is a gigantic pile of judicial precedents, which lawyers spend years learning.
The thing is, no country has 100% unfettered freedom of speech.
Judicial precedents are all about what is and isn’t an exception to freedom of speech under US law - i.e. what they debate about is “freedom of speech”, they are debating about whether X falls under the exceptions that the country has chosen.