What's the point of using the word "lawful" here? Free expression is free expression, conforming to a law or not is subject to the country and time. I think it somehow dilutes the absolute nature in the meaning of: free expression.
You're technically correct but in a meaningless way.
One is "free" to do basically anything they have the power to do, but nobody acts that way (they'd be jailed or dead) so when we say "free" we mean within reasonable bounds, which usually includes the law.
I'm not sure how it's meaningless. When we're talking about a concept such is free speech, there is no point of "within reasonable bounds... the law", at least in an ideological frame. The only bounds are those of any greater freedom, meaning do as you like as long as you're not transgressing on someone else's. Freedom of expression using ones own means is an absolute freedom that should be self-evident and self-defined.
What's the point of using the word "lawful" here? Free expression is free expression, conforming to a law or not is subject to the country and time. I think it somehow dilutes the absolute nature in the meaning of: free expression.