The American Bar Association concluded:
"However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object."
Assault and battery.
Two charges often mentioned in news and police reports. Assault is making threats of bodily harm against someone. Battery is actually harming someone, whether you threaten them or not. The 1st Amendment does not protect assault or battery, but "offending" someone's feelings is neither.
Making offending words illegal speech puts ammunition into the hands of unstable people, who are often exploited by those with a "politically correct" agenda for the purposes of speech, thought and political control. That's what Facebook, Google and YouTube have and are doing. The owners and managers of all three corporations were "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton, and used several methods to silence opposition against her, calling Conservative view points "hate" speech. Very convenient. YouTube, after years of encouraging people to create and post video content for a share of the ad revenue, turned on those with Conservative content and demonetized them. Those videos didn't just suddenly stop drawing ad money, but Google greedily keeping ALL the revenue for itself, destroying the livelihood of some who depended entirely on ad revenues for income. When deliberate detrending, shadow banning, or even altering the content of posts on Facebook or Twitter didn't stop the opposition to Hillary those corporations deleted the accounts of the "offenders". Very Orwellian of them.
The Public Commons was, in historical times, the place where citizens of a community gathered to discuss and debate issues of the day. Being a public place everyone had free access and freedom to say what they wished, aside from assault or battery. Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube all began supporting free speech but ended up turning to evil and placing limits on what people could say that went beyond prohibiting that which is already illegal. Some, especially those who own the corporations, and those on the Left whom the corporations represent more than any other part of the political spectrum claim that being private corporations they do not have to honor the 1st Amendment. I disagree. ALL of the Bill of Rights applies to ALL Americans no matter where they are on every square inch of this country, regardless of who owns the soil. According to current political dogma it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for a Christian baker to NOT bake a cake for a gay couple, but it is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment for Facebook Twitter or YouTube to censor or ban Conservatives. Both businesses depend on consumers from "off the street". An example of their double standard can be seen in a Twitter experiment testing the fairness of Twitters application of the censorship rules:
In previous generations children were taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". The lesson was "toughen up, the world is a dangerous place. Words will hurt you emotionally ONLY if you let them." Today, Social Justice "Warriors" rampage across our nation attacking people and destroying property, but if confronted in public places where their identity is not hidden behind bandannas, hoodies or balaclavas masks they retreat to their academic "safe places" to be coddled by their Marxist mentors.