"So you believe "freedom of expression" isn't an absolute right? We're starting to chip away at the veneer."
Not sure that required much chipping. Seeing as I unabashedly said so in my own post: when I said "In regards to that separate argument, I do feel some limits on speech can be reasonably agreed"
So...kudos on failing to read my post. I'm sure you're very proud.
"Freedom of expression means they have a right to think that copyright law is wrong, that they have a right to go around saying that copyright law is wrong, but not to actually break copyright law."
Except they didn't. They provided a facilitator, no doubt. But never hosted any of the content. The law, as existed in Sweden during their trial, did not consider the act of simple facilitation illegal. So what they were doing was expression. Making a freedom of expression play here was entirely justified.
And I would certainly disagree with any law outlawing facilitation of a crime. By that token, VCRs and DVRs would have been outlawed long ago. If one were to extend that to other areas, one could claim kitchen knife makers are facilitating domestic/spousal murder and that fertilizer companies facilitate terrorism.