[mowenz]

The point was that both are unintended consequences of things which generally help people. If we could have free speech, or roads, with no bad side effects we'd have them.

Once you eliminate speech just because you disagree with it, you begin the process of allowing the most powerful to determine that criteria for their own benefit.

[tmalsburg2]

The goal of the law under discussion is not to eliminate any form of speech or even contrarian speech. This law is just about speech that is designed to hurt people.

[mowenz]

By that criteria, everything from schoolyard insults to poems insulting Trump could be made illegal.

I know you don't want to be insulted, or let other people be insulted, but it's a dangerous responisbility to give to government to make them arbiter of what speech is acceptable.