> All legal experts agree that the protection of free speech in the Constitution cannot be absolute, because that would allow people to give false testimony in court.

Government cannot compel people to testify in court.

>There have been many legal cases where free speech stood at the core of the argument, and there is plenty of jurisprudence that makes it clear that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Verbal bullying isn't included in any of that.

>In general, the right to free speech means that citizens can publish their opinion without interference of the government, but not that citizens can bully, threaten, and/or deceive, other citizens with impunity.

Threatening may be illegal, perhaps, but bullying and deception are perfectly lawful.

Keep in mind, just because some men with guns grabbed this woman off the street does not mean that the state is behaving lawfully. There's a difference between unlawful and illegal.

>If you say specific negative things about him that are factually not true, that is slander (libel when written). You might get sued in civil court.

This isn't a civil case. The state arrested this woman for saying mean things. And just because we've gotten to the point where the state can legally destroy people financially for the things they say doesn't make it lawful (or should be anything that any rational person supports).

>If you threaten his life because you don't like him, the FBI will come knocking. because that's something for a criminal court.

All that says is government is capable of using violence in order to inflict its will on the people, yet does nothing to speak to the lawfulness of its actions. No one denies the fact that this woman was arrested for she things she said, but what is in contention is whether the state had the lawful authority to do so