And there are mechanisms to sue for libel.

"So why don’t we simply conclude that hate speech is damaging because it hurts people’s feelings?"

Because feelings are transient, unreliable, and not measurable (and often faked) and because people's feelings and livelihoods also get hurt by not being able to express themselves?

It's all so easy if you look at it in a narcissistic victim centered vacuum.

Speech codes are not working out so well in the countries whether they have been tried and Twitter is making a complete mess of it. See Jack Dorsey vs. Tim Pool discussions.

Nonoffensive speech needs no protection. It's an absolutely vacuous statement to advocate protecting only nonoffensive speech (which will be offensive next year, no doubt). Anything provocative does need protection because of this specious narcissistic feelz matter more than anything argument. If you think free speech is dangerous, wait til you see what happens when it goes underground.

Just curious, the half a million articles written on Russia collusion that turned out to be fake, was that hate speech?