Free speech is a mixed blessing. Even the founding fathers (who patterned much of their thinking after Enlightenment thinkers) knew that they were opening a can of worms. But, better to have worms than have nothing at all. I think the spate of juvenile suicide we have seen of late shows just how dangerous words can become. Children get verbally bullied, on line and in person. They feels there is no one who can help them. These circumstances are sufficient to marginalize them, and, they commit suicide or take guns to school, with (or without) murderous intent. There is no question that we have a problem here. One that clearly needs solutions...

Yes speech can kill .the perfect example is a death penalty order from the government .the person who does the killing is called the executioner .he executes the order given by the state .all declared wars are started by speech your debate is mostly about non-state sanctioned death .all state sanctioned death begins with words

See also my other comment from the December, 2017 post. Words, and how we think about them, are powerful influences on everyone of us. I have completed an essay I call: On Luck, Chance, Absurdity and Carl Jung. Part of that piece is included here, consisting of conclusions I reached while writing the paper:

...How we form notions about chance, luck, synchronicity and the like, is a curiosity. While principles/features of mathematics give us a degree of confidence in predicting chance outcomes, there is no free lunch: probability is NEVER certainty.

运气在任何意义上都是一个空洞的词;窄的，宽的或中性的它只代表事物可能是怎样的，而不是它们可能是怎样的，也不是它们将会是怎样的。可以说，这把它和内格尔关于信仰的神秘评论放在了同一个后院。(The View From Nowhere, 1986)

荣格的同步性假设(虽然近似于所谓的命运)暗示了一种不同于后者的可能性:同步性的潜在宗旨是，它意味着积极的体验/结果。它应该教会我们一些东西。命运往往与消极的结果联系在一起。这两者(我想荣格会同意)都依赖于偶然性。偶然事件不是运气的问题……

When we consider the realm of superstition, the pivotal role of language in passing that along, generation to generation, and how luck and superstition mutually support one another, we see clearly how powerful words are. I also wrote about how some superstitions emerged from practical considerations: not walking under a ladder for example, to wit, someone working high up on a ladder might have something he could drop ,accidentally,---but, accident or no, one walking below would not want to be on the business end of the accident---for some sorts of superstition, there is no other impetus stronger than self-preservation. Be careful what you say, because you never know who may be listening.

Speaking cant hurt or offend. Words themselves are just ordered scribbles and dont really have any meaning at all. It's just our collectivist delusions that words have meanings. We all have to decide to agree that a word has meaning for there to be anything to it at all. All words in all languages are reified argumentum ad populum fallacies in addition to whatever other error of logic they might be typically used for.

伤害和冒犯的是读者，而不是作者。看见的是心灵，而不是眼睛。

我们实际上已经成功地利用错觉将我们自己的情感外包出去，“你让我生气了!”这些都是我们从小就被灌输的谎言，通过这种方式，我们得到的第一课就是缺乏个人责任感和错误的指责。

言论自由是一项公认的权利。被冒犯并没有公认的权利。

There is no forum, so far, herein for the question(s) I am about to frame. As tar as I now know. My perplexity is what has evolved as UP-TALK. It seems useless to me. Not like rock and roll. Nor, jazz.
No, up-talk is a distraction. Up-talkers are lazy. Too lazy to think before they speak. So, these indolent people phrase their remarks as questions, hoping hearers will take the bait and answer their questions for them. So they don,'t have to work so hard. Inasmuch as work requires effort and time, I contend that up-talkers are merely trying to get ahead of the game. Now, someone might argue that this is only mass/popular culture; linguistic nuance; or progress. Huh? A reasonable judge, in a rational court of law, would laugh such nonsense out of her court. I have seen it discounted on tv courts. And those are a fraud and a ruse---from the get-go. Here's the challenge: next time you are being up-talked, ask the speaker if his/ her remark is a question. If there is an um or a quizzical look, walk away. You do not owe them your time or attention.