I agree, and in my opinion it's a sort of climb further and further down in which people decide what is offensive and not, what is acceptable or not, and they d

I agree, and in my opinion it's a sort of climb further and further down in which people decide what is offensive and not, what is acceptable or not, and they don't require evidence for it - they just legislate the problems. And it's not rare that it's done by the people who have good intentions. They want society to run smoothly and nicely - but by trying to ensure that with law, we lose individual liberties. I've noticed that people think of speech in the same way as "you should be allowed to say that" or "you shouldn't be allowed to say this" rather than in the way of "you should be allowed to speak" or "you shouldn't be allowed to speak". This kind of "particular" reasoning leads to examining the contents of speech rather than simply the right. A magistrate who ruled in a case about the cartoons I mentioned mentioned that "society has no need for these materials", or words to that effect. This really proves my point about taking society's use for something over the individual. Most laws usually considered to be unjust we find are related to protecting people from themselves or inadequate consideration for personal liberty.