That could not be further from the truth. There’s plenty of offensive speech that isn’t suppressed (personal insults, porn/other things that used to be considered “obscene”) and there’s plenty of inoffensive speech that is (spam, sometimes defamation).

No speech is suppressed where free speech is valued as a right, probably your case.

You would find that porn and personal insults are not legal in many parts of the world. The Chinese government has adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward so-called sexual content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_China

To them it is offensive therefore illegal. Again, protecting offensive speech is the point behind free speech as a human right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I don't know how those examples relate to my point. "protecting offensive speech is the point behind free speech as a human right."

You said:

> If speech is not offensive it wouldn't be suppressed

My point is that's not true, and it's trivial to find counterexamples. I listed a few in my comment.

Defamation is offensive, Spam is not suppressed speech(?).

You can defame a corporation, in which case there’s no one to take offense. As for spam: look up the long list of rules in the CAN-SPAM act, for example.

Again, this is missing the point.

Good speech is often considered offensive to some, so we must tolerate offensive speech in the name of free speech.

Offensive speech is not automatically good speech and offensive speech in and of itself isn't automatically worthy of broadcast.

How am I missing the point? There is no point. We can choose as humans how we deal with speech we find offensive.

Free speech as a right was thought of by people that deemed offensive speech to have inherent protection. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...