The problem with your position is that SOMEBODY would get to decide what is or isn’t offensive and what would be done
about it....that means that the person making the decision gets to impose their own personal beliefs and agendas on others. The ONLY fair, free and correct approach is the
fact that ALL speech is protected unless and until a person
can prove that what was said was false and that that someone suffered actual harm from the false speech...then the laws of libel and slander would apply. Otherwise free speech is either free or it is not...there can be no in between.
You fail to understand that SOMEBODY would get to decide what is or isn't "actual harm" in the final analysis. Do we really want virtually millions of tort lawsuits across the country to determine, on a case-by-case basis, if someone was really harmed by someone's speech or action?
SOMEBODY WILL be making decisions about these issues, usually shopped, biased judges. After all, look at how many Occuparasite protesters were exonerated of charges for what they claimed is "free speech" - urinating and defecating in public, trespassing, and the most egregious breaches of the peace imaginable.
It used to be common sense and practice to pass laws that front-loaded this process by making specified behaviors that the community deemed offensive enough to warrant not having to deal with it on an ongoing basis illegal - based on community standards. I, and most people where I live, don't want to hear the F-bomb dropped incessantly in public. We should have the right to not have it happen.