So somehow learning more about how stress is generated changes whether or not stressors should be banned? How does that make sense? If anything, we now know mor

So somehow learning more about how stress is generated changes whether or not stressors should be banned? How does that make sense? If anything, we now know more about how damaging chronic stress is, so our justification to ban stressors should be even higher than it was in the past. The only good argument is that speech shouldn't be banned even if it leads to a large stress response, because of the slippery slope risk and so on. Taking the position that either (i) speech can't generate a large stress response that's physically harmful to the individual, or that (ii) our knowledge of how stress is generated somehow changes whether or not stressors should be banned -- these are both not good arguments.