Just to review: The person holding this sign is condemning the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ if that speech hurts someone’s feelings, right? She is not condemning certain speech, but the idea of freedom of speech, should the speech offend someone.
So, it is up to me to anticipate those things which will hurt your feelings, gauge my words based upon your possible response, and only then will I be able to speak?
If I somehow overstep your ability to handle my ideas, vocabulary or nonverbal cues and as a result I hurt your feelings, then there must be some consequence? Because government consequences are kinda how we define rights.
So, in conclusion, you are willing to give up a fundamental right, simply to avoid having your feelings hurt, right?
Based upon my experience with this idea, you might also be willing to void the free speech portion of the U.S. Constitution (First Amendment, two inches above the word “flintlock”) if somebody else could possibly have their feelings hurt. Ask the Redskins. No, I mean the football team.
Are you willing to bargain away rights not specifically listed in the constitution like privacy, abortion rights, the ‘right’ to decent housing and healthcare, etc. under the same circumstances? Because Free Speech is actually written there in the First Amendment, but you’re willing to bargain it away just so nobody gets sad. Will you give up any of the other rights under this newly discovered “sadness” clause?
If on the other hand, your statement about freedom hurts my feelings, will I have recourse, also?