system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Policing speech, whether legally or socially, can never achieve the intended aims of doing so, and in the end ultimately backfires.

You can (maybe) stop (some) people from saying the things you don't want them to say.

But you can't stop them from thinking those things. And you can't stop them from acting on those thoughts.

And if anything, suppressing (whether through laws or shame) what people feel like saying can only lead them to more vehemently express whatever verboten sentiment they have in other ways. Like pressing on a balloon, if you push hard enough it will eventually pop. 

And once you've ended the discussion by demanding silence on an issue, you've lost the opportunity to engage rationally.

"Yelling fire in a theatre" (and the like) being an exception of course.
gpt
The key weak point in your argument is about shame. Shame and social consequences has been historically the biggest determinant in the suppression of antisocial behaviour and the mobilisation of social change provided you can hit home and make people feel it. Shame has been linked to the collapse of the 2nd Klan, the ending of footbinding in China, duelling for honour in Europe and ending the slave trade in the British empire (see Honor Code by Kwame Appiah for references).