The less historically significant, but the most intellectually sound, is the Hobbsian notion of Natural Law- the idea he asserts to build off of is that people will be more able to agree on negative liberties than positive ones. Eg, everybody agrees they don't want to be hit in the head with a stick, but everybody won't agree about where to build the town hall. From that proposition he constructs a series of negative rights that kind of fit together. Leviathan is good reading and a very clever and interesting idea, but its fundamental premise doesn't actually turn out to be true. In most parts of the world and most eras of history, people have agreed on at least some positive liberties and many of the negative liberties he asserts have actually been incredibly controversial.
So, what I'm left with from his writings is just the social contract. That much does make sense to me.
A more robust approach, in my opinion, is to try to maximize both. Figure out exactly how to draw the line to allow as much freedom as possible to the speaker while protecting the most important property rights. This is the sort of exercise courts exist to conduct. For example, with that scenario, the balance we've worked out is that if the speaker can show that he had a good faith belief that what he was saying is true, we side with the speaker, but if he can't, then we side with the property owner. It's a compromise. It limits both of their rights, but they still both have more rights than they would have if we just arbitrarily defined limits to one of their rights like discussed above. IMO that kind of balancing and finding workable solutions is where the real work of maximizing our rights takes place.