So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?

I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.

Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.

As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647

By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.

To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.

So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.

That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.

Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.

Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.

But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.