Well, about these messages I have to agree with you, but I can’t simply agree with absolutely anything else.

Let’s see, I’m not from the United States so I don’t know their situation well (although I must say that I HATE Trump anyway), but I’m from Venezuela, which is really much, MUCH worse; Nicolás Maduro was literally a fucking dictator who killed anyone who dared to mock him (if you’ve never heard of Helicoide, I recommend looking it up), and now that they took Maduro they left us with Delcys Rodríguez, who is another fucking harpy. I really cannot understand how someone who has not experienced a true dictatorship and who has not faced offense and repression for ideological reasons can say so calmly that freedom of expression should be limited; What blissful ignorance of yours to live in a bubble like that, you make me sick (with every intention to offend :3). It really seems absurd to me how you think that “emotional harm” is a valid criterion or is in any way different from offense; No, they can apply in different areas, but epistemically and ontologically they are the same: pure subjective whim, and an ideology that the world revolves around you and your problems.

I’ll put it to you this other way:

1. Or only some speeches are prohibited (therefore falling into totalitarian arbitrariness).
2. Or all speeches are prohibited (and therefore language and existence themselves are also prohibited, in a non-metaphorical, non-figurative and non-hyperbolic, but literal sense).
3. Or no speech is prohibited, but only real and concrete actions (a defamation, a social lynching, a false denunciation, a fraud, a robbery, a coup or a murder), and, at most, imperative speeches (not a mere “hatred of X” but an explicit “X should die”).

Strict logic is the only reasonable law, and your ideology falls under the above reductio ad absurdum.