Ah, I see- that does make a bit more sense. Though I must say, that still sounds very... odd, to me.

First, that's not at all what freedom of speech is. The (human) right to freedom of expression is not the right to voice and express any and all opinions without consequences. It is the right to hold and express opinions, as well as give and receive 'information.' The self same treaty that states this (ICCPR) also states that exercising this right carries responsibilities and essentially, that with this right comes the duty to respect the rights/reputation of others, to protect national security and to protect/uphold public health and morals.

I'll say it again, the same treaty that recognizes our basic human right to freedom of expression also says that with said right, comes the responsibility to respect the rights and reputation of others, while protecting national security, and to uphold/protect both public health and morals, and that anybody exercising their right to freedom of expression is subject to these restrictions.

To give bigots a platform on which to express themselves on, because you want to "respect our freedom of expression", is to almost instantly shit on the same right that you claim to want to protect.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, you have a very flawed way of thinking. "This thing exists, so we (as humans) shouldn't take any steps to stop it from happening or affecting people. If this thing affects you, it's up to you to deal with it in your own time" I absolutely cannot wrap my head around that. We used to live in much darker times and, in terms of culture and social norms, we got past that by punishing people for the "bad" things we were doing and advocating for the better alternative.

That's how it's always been and why we've (socially/culturally) come so far as a species; empathy and the ability to listen. Why has our advocating (not the right word but I can't think of a better one) for this plateaued recently? It's really damn confusing. The same people that argue against being PC and "coddling" are the same people that fight tooth and nail for bigoted people's rights to express themselves, which is quite possibly the most backwards thing you could ever do in this context.

Honestly, you can't advocate against something and cite it's lack of "existence" as your reason for doing so, while simultaneously advocating against the creation of said thing, because it hasn't existed before. I cannot think of a more lazy, idle and frankly, really fucking stupid, way to deal with something.

Apologies for ranting and raving, it's just that this real world/freedom of speech??? type argument is really, really god damn confusing and I cannot wrap my head around it. Maybe it's just because I'm a Brit, and we don't care even half as much as the US about freedom of speech (as a right, not a concept) or the legalities behind rights in general, but it's always seemed like a petty as fuck argument against things. What ever happened to "I said a thing, it made you sad. Sorry, I didn't mean to- have a hug/gift/etc (depending on the relationship here) how can I not do this again?" and leaving it at that? It doesn't hurt to treat these things case by case and accept that people actually have feeling that require dynamic thinking and decision making.