It is unreasonable to offend someone because of his skin colour, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his beliefs, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his sexuality and it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his nationality. Offending a racist may be reasonable if it is the only way to eventually stop it from offending minorities.

People don't choose what to be offended by, which is why we need to be flexible and stop as much offending as possible. A racist being offended because he cannot express his hateful views makes no sense. A religious society being offended by a minority because they don't share their beliefs makes no sense. A Jew being offended by hateful speech every day on his way to work does make sense.

It is all about being reasonable.

Why wouldn't a religious society be offended if I said that god is a lie? Even if I put forth every fact I can just the statement itself is offensive. Wouldn't that be something you'd have to outlaw? Why is it unreasonable to be offended by that but finding other things offensive is reasonable?

Hateful speech sucks, but I'd rather keep all the hateful speech in the world than give someone else the ability to decide what is and isn't ok for me to think and say. Whether that's decided by the majority or by a single person I won't give away my right to think for myself.

You do not have the right to not be offended.  Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society.  I find the very term "hate speech" offensive, because it categorizes ideas based on a single point of view.  Its newspeak.  Its the beginnings of the thought police.  Democracy can only exist in a free society, and a society is not free if the free exchange of ideas doesn't exist.  By threatening to throw people in jail or fine them based on what they say you have eliminated the free society.

But, for the sake of argument, lets take your idea to the next logical step.  We ban "hate speech".  Who decides what qualifies as "hate speech"?  The offended?  Then the law against "hate speech" can be used as a weapon against those they politically oppose.  It would be akin to having the force of law behind the "race card".  "People don't like Obama because they're racists!  Throw them in jail".  This is not a society I want to live in.

So what's the next step if the above happens?  The CEO of chick fil a was recently accused of being a bigot and homophobe for saying "I believe and support traditional marraige".  Boston and Chicago threatened to withhold building permits from Chic-fil-a because of his "hate speech" and religious beliefs, in a clear violation of the first amendment.  The thing is, his belief is shared by millions of religious people, both christian, jewish, and muslim.  If you outlaw "hate speech", then you've essentially opened the door for legalized and institutionalized religious persecution.  This is not a society I want to live in.

Free speech is the cornerstone of free society.  If you limit free speech, you are opposed to freedom.

It is also about context. Running in to a church and yelling "God is a lie!" can obviously be offensive, but calmly saying "I think God is a lie" among friends won't offend anyone. Saying that you "hate niggers" in itself shouldn't be punishable since it doesn't necessarily offend anyone, but go tell it to a black man on the streets and he will obviously be offended.

This dilemma (about whether people are offended or not) isn't exclusive to speech, it goes with physical actions too. Punch your friends repeatedly and they may or may not actually be offended after a while. Swing your fist in front of certain individuals regularly as they pass by and they may or may not be offended by it. Whether people are offended or not depends on the person, and the court is (or at least should be) there to make as few people become offended by others as possible. Society should prevent people from offending one another, not give them rights to do so.

Oh, and what you say has absolutely nothing to do with what you think. Those are two separate things.

No, no they are very much one in the same, because in a free society, I'm going to say what I think.  In your society, I'll think twice before expressing my honest opinion, for fear of retribution from the thought police.

Watch those videos from the previous page, if you haven't already.

Thoughts can't harm anyone but yourself. Speech can harm anyone if expressed inappropriately.

You won't ever need to think twice unless you plan to actually harm someone, and no one should ever harm anyone. Your laws though justifies harming others mentally, even if it is on purpose. That I cannot understand.

It's not about preventing people from expressing their opinions (like a thought police would), it's about using your opinion as a weapon against minorities, for instance. You can have any opinion as long as you don't use it to intentionally harm others.

The court may decide whether it was intentional or not by being as fair as it possibly can be.

But where do you draw a reasonable line?

Is it offensive to say that Jews are like a cancer?

Is it offensive to say that Americans are stupid?

Is it offensive to say that Christians are delusional?

Speech can't hurt anyone either.  Have you heard the rhyme "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  Its true.  Words you hear only have the power to hurt you if you give them that power.  I should not be held responsible for someone elses perception of what I say.  It is not my problem if my speech offends you, its yours.

Again, there is no inalenable right to be free of offense.  What you are proposing is limiting and removing someone elses freedom so that you don't risk being offended.  There are countries with laws like this.  I believe Saudi Arabia and Iran are two, as is North Korea.

If you don't understand how terrible and horrible limiting people's speech is, even on a basic level, then there'll be no convincing you.

That depends on who you are asking. Different people are offended by diffent statements. The court may eventually decide (as objectively as possible) if the intention was to offend or harm the victim.

There will always be people who try to bypass the system, but not having a system is the same as giving up, in my opinion. We don't skip our law-system just because there always will be people who break them or try to take advantage of them.

This.  As a religious person, I get offended by just about every arrogant loudmouth athiest who tries to call me an unintelligent gibbering idiot (dispite my degree in science) because I profess a belief in God.  Under your (the1) society, I should be able to pass a law to get those athiests thrown in jail for offending me.  This is a terrible idea, because even things I find offensive have VALUE and worth in a free society because someone has taken the time to sit there, think about their views, and come to the conclusion that their views are right.  Speech is about a free exchange of ideas, and no matter what ideas are being shared SOMEONE is going to find them offensive.