You've created a straw man and called it a crazy fallacy. No one believes that speech doesn't affect behavior. But there is a cost to allowing speech to be off

You've created a straw man and called it a crazy fallacy. No one believes that speech doesn't affect behavior. But there is a cost to allowing speech to be offensive to certain races, groups, or lifestyles. There is also a cost to restricting speech such that no one feels offended. Which cost is higher? Which cost are you willing to pay? And furthermore, what is actually an effective plan. Is it realistic to think you can shut people up from being offensive? Is that even a workable plan? Many people feel that the cost of restricting speech so that we can protect groups is vastly higher than the cost of allowing offensive speech.