I merely think when we criticize someone for something they say, it should be for what they actually said, not for what we assume (or project) they meant.
That rather low tactic should be left to liberals with their talk of codewords and dog whistles. They can't argue successfully with what we say, so they claim the words really mean something else entirely.
I think it’s really pretty simple.
There is a huge range of “freedoms.”
Some of those freedoms are protected against infringement by the State or other people. We call them human rights. They are inalienable.
Other freedoms are prohibited, because they infringe on other’s rights when exercised. We call them crimes.
A vastly larger range is in the middle, neither prohibited nor protected. Sometimes we argue if one of these should be moved into one of the other categories.
Sometimes a “right” even gets moved into the “crime” category. That’s what happened in 1865 with slavery, and what the gun-grabbers are trying to do now with 2A.
Sometimes a “crime” even gets moved into the “rights” category. That’s what happened with abortion due to Roe.