Is language inconsequential and therefore immune to legislation? Or is language equivalent to action—...?

Language is intermediate between thought and action: it is thought made observable. It straddles the line between the abstract and the concrete. Which of its aspects—the ethereal or the physical—should be the basis of our legal understanding of the capacity of language to do harm? Is language inconsequential and therefore immune to legislation? Or is language equivalent to action—world-changing and so capable of harm—in which case legal notice must be taken of injurious linguistic behavior?