Not at all, Mr. Devil's Advocate. There is no conclusion (ergo no fallacy, because it's not an argument). I was merely attempted to point out, succinctly, that the limiting of speech and expression is very inviting for oppression. What better way to deal with dissenters than simply make it illegal to speak out? It all comes back to the safety vs. freedom struggle.

I'll halt here after making this distinction, because I feel an adult person's emotional well-being should not be protected by the above clause. Whether or not your offended or emotionally hurt from someone's speech isn't their problem, even if your depressed state caused you to lose your job. This is so the limitation on speech is a tangible, objective, and measurable occurrence.

"The best response to offensive speech is more free speech."
-University of Texas Residence Hall Manual

Some countries, such as France, penalize people who blatantly shout racial insults in public places. But in other nations, such as America, Nazis are allowed to spread their antisemitism and the Westboro Baptist Church can stage protests at military funerals. Some regard these actions of free speech to be healthy for a society. Others find offensive statements to be painful for the individuals in the targeted group.

How would you feel if you saw a poster that deliberately insults your race or religion. Would you tear the poster down, or simply ignore the slip of paper on the wall? Should hate speech be censored or allowed? Where do you draw the line?