[15charlimit]

Those who are "vulnerable" may choose to either stop participating in speech that offends them or learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

Attempting to restrict speech is not the answer, has never been an acceptable answer, and will never be an acceptable answer.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

> learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered.

The old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a lie. Words can severely hurt people, and even if they don't break their bones directly, they probably will incite people to actually break their bones.

[15charlimit]

> It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered. I can't recall the last time I heard about words murdering someone. Incited murder/suicide? Perhaps, but at that point you're just shifting blame around to try and make a point.

In the case of suicide, the "victim" would have had any number of chances to disconnect from the source of the speech that was hurting them.

> they probably will incite people to actually break their bones In the case of murder/assault, well, last time I checked that's already a punishable crime.

Your argument does not further a case for the repression of free speech.