The Act of Speech Deserve No Special Treatment

[Torillian]

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Torillian said:

Less restrictions are put on speech because they don't have directly physically harmful effects like the actions you can't take.  The idea that your right to swing your arms around stops at the other person's nose draws a very clear line of what you can and can't do, on the other hand saying that your right to speech stops at another person's feelings doesn't really draw as definitive a line.  Policing what people can and can't say starts to get too close to policing what they can and can't think, which is not something I want decided by majority decision like it would be in a democracy.  Because while I agree with the majority on a lot of things, like most I don't agree with the majority on every single thing.  

The problem is not people being or not being offended by what other people say. The problem is people saying things for the sake of offending, which is perfectly legal from what I understand.

You say that you wouldn't want the majority of the population to decide what you can and can't say, but at the same you pretty much assume that the majority will have a non racist/sexist/homophobic opinion to counter things like hate speech. If a great majority of the US population turned racist, wouldn't you want to have laws that tell them not to actively yell "Fuck niggers!" on the streets? Wouldn't the minority deserve the right to not have to listen to that stuff every day?

How do you define what speech is said solely to offend and what is just offensive as a side effect?  And yes it's perfectly legal to say something just to offend people, as it should be.  

How would laws ever stop the majority from saying what they want in a democratic society?  It would only ever stop the minority opinion that couldn't muster up enough support to win a vote on the matter.  You think we should make laws against hateful speech now since all our opinions are reasonable, but if you make a law about it now what's going to stop a later majority from making the laws reflect their own personal views?  I just can't agree with that idea.  People should always be able to say their piece even if I disagree with it, because I wouldn't want my own rights to express myself taken away as well.  Let's say we ban hate speech now because we're all nice and reasonable people, what stops the majority from outlawing anything they don't agree with or find offensive?  What about anti-religous speech since the majority of the US is religious?  Anti-patriotic speech?  Once you start making that decision for others you open the door to the majority deciding the same thing for you, I really can't see how the potential benefits outweigh the obvious harms.