If you keep making our (fair, imo) approach to free speech appear as bad or even similar to North Korea and Iran's definitions, then there'll be no convincing you.

People commit suicide every day because of what others are saying to them. If you choose to put the blame on the person who commit suicide then so be it, I prefer to put the blame on those who talked shit to this person.

That's another flaw in the American system. You always assume that everyone will be able to take any verbal crap flinged at them, and that it's their fault if they choose to be offended by it. The sole thought of such a society makes me sad, really.

You know what else limits our freedom? Laws prohibiting violence. But they are there to stop people from using their complete freedom to ruin the freedom of others. In other words, people will be more free if they are not exposed to others using their freedom against them. In my opinion, offending words can stop others from being free as well.

If the speech solicits or encourages an illegal act (for example advertising for a hit man or inciting a riot) then there can be reasonable limitations put on it ... Outside of that, people are free to say whatever they want to say but they should also have no protection for the consequences of their speech.

You wouldn't need to pass any additional laws in my supposed society (which actually exists in many places in Europe). If you are ever offended by an atheist or more, bring that case to court and see if they agree that their intention was indeed to offend you or people of similar religious beliefs. In fact, we have a name for that crime regarding offending certain groups of people.

Laws prohibiting violence protect people from real physical demonstrable harm.  It is protecting the freedom of people to not be injured.  If I punch someone on the nose, I know for a fact its going to cause them pain, and may break their nose.  If I call someone gay online, I don't know if they'll take it as a joke, shrug it off, be offended and commit suicide, or decide to have a rational discussion about the incident.  I have NO control over that.  The outcome is UNKNOWN, and only ONE of those possible outcomes could be construed as harmful, and there are several that can be construed as beneficial. 

As for suicide, nobody made that person hang themselves, cut themselves, or shoot themselves.  They were all actions the individual chose to take.  I don't like bullying, and the people who take part in it are asses, that's for sure.  But lets not pretend that someone calling you fat or gay forced you in any way to harm yourself.  Under your logic, the guy responsible for the suicide of an investor who lost his fortunes on the stock market rests on the ones responsible for buying his stock and ruining him, not the guy hanging from the rope himself.

If you can't handle any of my "verbal flaps", that is not my problem.  I have absolutely no control over how you or anyone else will react to what I say.  Therefore, any responsibility for actions as a result of how you react to what I say is yours (or theirs).  If I did have that kind of control, then you might have a case, but I'm not a psychic or psionic or any other sci-f-/fantasy creature capable of controlling others thoughts and feelings.  How you feel about what I say is your problem, not mine.

And you seriously think this is OK.  That I could potentially silence people with an informed and rational opinion because I felt insulted.

Simple.

You put in place laws on any type of speech all that does is set precedence to put laws to block all types of speech.

Basically you can't open any avenue to do so as someone would use it to block others.

Let's say you start off blocking "hatred, racism, etc". Well eventually that gets used by others to block negative speech against political factions and then it spirals into negative speech against political figures and then you have a dictatorship.

Sure I'm cutting out a lot of slower progression, but it is how it starts and it will end badly at some point.

Additionally, people who spew hate will always get their justice at some point.

How exactly is speech that is made in order to offend anyone informed?

You keep focusing at the wrong thing here, so allow me to be clear: The problem is not people claiming to be offended, the problem is people talking with the intention of offending one or more persons. When someone goes to a public area and start yelling "Fuck every single immigrant within our borders!", he very well knew that people would be offended by his actions, and not just immigrants, but also all who supports a democratic society where everyone has the right to not be insulted for their belief, race or sexuality. In a similar manner, a guy who enters a public area and start shooting people down is well aware that people will be injured.

That's an assumption. I (along with a great, great majority of our population) want concrete actions, for the victims' and for the future victims' sake.

Words are merely ordered pockets of sound.  It is what is behind the words, and their meaning, that matters.  In regards to this, who are you to say what a person can or cannot say, think or believe?  

Experience has shown, the moment the state starts going into censoring things, and has the ability to block things, it will end up blocking information from getting out that can threaten its existence, and the individuals in power.  What you saw with Pussy Riot fits into this.  And the same goes with Wikileaks being shut down.  

I will again repeat what I have said, if you base what is right or wrong around rights, you are going to have conflicts happening, if you declare them as rights and not positive and negative duties.  If one wants to uphold maximum freedom, then you don't censor what others say, but the others should respect your right to not want to listen, and individuals should think about what they have to say being of value or not.  With the freedoms comes the need for people to properly use freedom.

If they do something, they do get arrested etc. But just saying stuff, usually is a slower response time. Take that church that goes to all the funerals. The took awhile but now they get blocked out of everything and I'm sure their followers have not only dwindled but also don't go around openly sharing their affiliation with the group.

What you are asking for is akin to the death threats people get for drawing bad cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). That's where restrictions on speech lead. Its simply ignorance and wrong and you can't allow it to start.