As a starting point for this article, one of the most controversial topics is considered: the possibility of violence in interpersonal communication and the question of when something is considered reprehensible for ethical or moral reasons. Different mindsets and views of justice and contextual relevance play an essential role in shaping how the world is initially constructed, how things should be.
In principle, it is possible—no one can prevent another from thinking— to make misanthropic statements in which violent fantasies, for example, towards people with disabilities, are expressed. There is a fundamental distinction between statements and actions.
Actions are when things around us irreversibly change in their state. Logically, it can be determined, irrespective of moral and ethical values, whether actions have been taken at the expense of others and whether others have been given the choice to consent to the action. If A attacks the status quo ante (the previous state) of B through threats, coercion, or violence, B will defend against this attack or preserve their condition to avoid worsening their situation.  The question is whether antisocial actions toward fellow humans can be implied not only through actions themselves, but also through (communicated) statements. More on that later.
"Antisocial behavior can be categorized as coercive (threat, coercion), pseudocoercive (deception, lies, fraud), or autistically aggressive (appropriation, violence, killing)." 
A statement can also be autistic and peaceful: No one can prevent someone from getting upset about people alone at home or mocking them in the worst way, regardless of the backgrounds or context. However, the statement can be critical to autistic, hostile (or aggressive): It is primarily about being antisocial toward the world around by using threats, deception, fraud, incitement to violence, or the like (more on that later) to reach others. Here, people begin to interpret what "right" or "wrong," ethical, and moral judgments are. The evaluation of statements, however, is not subject to a uniform normative regularity, as value judgments are always subjective, and people have different views on what is considered ethically and morally reprehensible.
The challenge of interpersonal actions is to determine under what circumstances statements are interpreted as actions in specific contexts, especially when they have an impact on other people or the environment. The precise interpretation depends on the circumstances, applicable laws, and social norms.
The central question here is: Who has the right to establish rules and decide whether a statement is considered an action, regardless of the perspective of the affected individual?
There is no universal formula for this. Instead, methodological and analytical approaches are used to determine whether property rights are violated, and empirical methods rely on the analysis of specific, case-related situations. Today's legal system, which forms the basis of society, has indeed developed from the resolution of real disputes.
The "Golden Rule," which states that one should treat others as one would like to be treated, often serves as a fundamental guideline and is based on protecting the integrity of others' property rights. This rule aligns with the logic of action, as understood in praxeology. Praxeology focuses on how people set goals, select means, and take actions to achieve these goals without making normative judgments. This underscores that praxeology is a descriptive approach that analyzes human action without making normative statements about ethical behavior.
Based on the principles of property rights, non-politicized common law developed over time, aiming to protect the general property of people. In various regions, people made agreements that came about through decentralized structures and iterative empirical improvements in tort law, commercial law, contract law, and property law. This led to the establishment of generally recognized legal principles. In addition, specific legal standards derived from existing ones, thus adapting to the geographical conditions, cultural differences, and religious beliefs of individual societies under common law. 
"Of course, there are some rules that must apply to all people; rules that create the basic conditions for cooperative behavior. Rules that prohibit offenses such as murder, assault, theft, and other forms of coercion must be equally binding on all members of a society. […] These rules always develop first in any community; if this were not the case, there would not even be a community."  (own translation)
A common mistake is to view the law as a deliberate means of pursuing certain goals while overlooking a simpler evolutionary explanation. In the past, the primary goal was to reduce violence in society by deterring actions that could provoke immediate violent reactions. Jurisprudence tended to punish those who committed such acts, including offenses against dignity or other attacks on honor. Here are the delicts of common law: "Battery" and "Assault."  The following will address the questions mentioned above.
Can antisocial behavior be implied solely through physical actions or also through verbal statements?
The delict "Battery" prohibits not only physical contact with the intent to harm but also actions aimed at provocation or insult (injury to honor). Both failed and successful attacks can trigger violence and have legal consequences. However, if the intended victim does not notice the attack, it cannot provoke a violent reaction. If the threat is not imminent, the threatened person often has the opportunity to flee, seek help, or respond nonviolently. In addition, the delict "Assault" should be mentioned, which relates to the threat of immediate physical harm, of which the threatened person is aware. 
Similar to the delict "Battery," which targets not only physical violence but also provocation or insult, even today, online words and comments can constitute violence in the form of "cyberbullying" or psychological harassment, depending on the context and individual sensitivities. Both successful and unsuccessful attempts to harm or humiliate others can have serious consequences for the victim and legal action. However, reactions to such statements are difficult to grasp and are known to depend on various factors, such as contextual relevance (as previously mentioned) and individual sensitivities. If the intended victim does not notice the insults or attacks, this may not lead to direct violent behavior. If the threat is not imminent, the affected person often has the opportunity to block, report, or otherwise respond to harassment. Similar to the legal context, where Assault refers to the threat of immediate physical harm, in the online environment - as a new evolutionary development - threatening or harassing a person, despite the absence of immediate physical danger, can be considered a form of Assault.
"[Spontaneous Order] arose from the unintended adherence to certain inherited and largely moral modes of conduct, many of which people generally dislike, whose meaning they usually do not understand, the correctness of which they cannot prove, and which, nevertheless, by virtue of evolutionary selection—the relative increase in numbers and wealth—quickly spread in those groups that happened to adopt them. The unwitting, reluctant, occasionally painful adoption of such modes of conduct held these groups together, improved their access to valuable information of all kinds, and enabled them to follow the command: Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it […]. This process is perhaps the least appreciated aspect of human development." 
Regarding delict rights, F. A. Hayek's quote could illustrate that certain norms and social rules, though not always obvious, can play a significant role in maintaining social order and promoting cohesion and prosperity. Similar to the discussion about the distinction between normative sciences and the science of the normative (praxeology), the quote emphasizes the importance of social norms that have evolved over time to guide human behavior and interaction, even if these norms are not always fully understood.
In conclusion, the analytical method of the logic of action, praxeology, provides a crucial guideline for understanding property rights and human action. It offers insights into the processes of how people set goals, select means, and take actions to achieve these goals without making normative judgments. Praxeology does not serve as a normative science but allows for a descriptive analysis of human behavior.
People evolve culturally and shape norms that build historically on logical actions. Common law, as an example of an evolving legal system, is based on the logical principles of action but has evolved empirically by building on case-specific situations while creating social norms and legal rules.
Regarding the question of whether communication can involve violence, the article demonstrates that this depends on various factors, including the (societal and legal) context. Similar to the legal context, where "Battery" targets provocation or insult, communication can be interpreted as violence depending on the context and individual sensitivities. This underscores the complexity of the topic and the importance of praxeology as a guideline, even though it cannot encompass all aspects of human psychology and behavior.