The harm threshold is the single boundary that runs through the charter of interior rights, and its precision is deliberate. It cannot simply be as long as no one is harmed, because almost every consequential action produces some burden — a protest inconveniences, a divorce hurts, a competitor cuts into revenue, a criticism offends, a refusal shifts burden onto someone else. A boundary that loose would let authorities redefine discomfort, dissent, or inconvenience as harm and suppress everything the charter protects. So the threshold is set higher:
The exercise of interior standing may be constrained only when it creates substantial, non-consensual impairment of another participant’s standing, safety, bodily integrity, or viable participation — and any constraint must itself be proportionate, contestable, and no broader than necessary.
Two clauses do the work. The first raises the bar for what counts as constraining harm (substantial, non-consensual, and touching standing, safety, body, or viable participation — not mere offense or inconvenience). The second constrains the constraint itself: even a legitimate limit must be proportionate, open to challenge, and minimal. It is the interiority-scaled form of consequence-weighted governance — the weight of the response matched to the weight of the actual harm — and the rigor is precisely what makes it hard to abuse.