Are there ethicists who defend the conclusion that "harm" be defined by the individual being harmed?

From WP:

Some legal scholars… have argued that the traditional issues of free speech — that "the main threat to free speech" is the censorship of "suppressive states", and that "ill-informed or malevolent speech" can and should be overcome by "more and better speech" rather than censorship — assumes a scarcity of information. This scarcity prevailed during the 20th century, but with the arrival of the internet, information became plentiful, "but the attention of listeners" scarce. And in the words of Wu, this “cheap speech" made possible by the internet " … may be used to attack, harass, and silence [emphasis mine] as much as it is used to illuminate or debate.”

As freedom of speech is quite dependent on the definition of "harm" (as this answer also points out), and as the concept is quite complex, which philosophers defend the notion that what constitutes "harm" should be answered exclusively by the individual upon whom it is supposedly inflicted? If there are arguments in the historical or contemporaneous ethical or political philosophy literature, what are those arguments?