There is no such thing as dangerous speech; it is up to people to choose how they react.
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue to the contrary that there can be instances of dangerous speech. To what extent should a society put limitations on speech or text that it considers threatening?
This statement implies that speech in itself is not 'dangerous' in that it doesn't cause significant harm. It seems to support the concept of freedom of speech by saying that the people choose how they react and as such, is not the speaker's fault. A speech consists of words being uttered by an individual so it can't be physically harmful in any way. It is usually just ideas put across and has no direct implications in the real world. It is an opinion. One person's perspective. How can expressing your opinion be harmful? In fact, it would be dangerous if free speech was abolished as it would take our inherent right to liberty and cause us, as a society, to be less aware of truly malicious behaviour like racism and sexism. The only real danger of a speech is when the audience has a strong reaction to it and since interpretation is largely subjective (it is apparent as different people will undoubtedly have different reactions), people could adopt positive attitudes and eliminate the danger. It is not the words, but the people that are dangerous.
On the contrary, one may argue that although interpretation is subjective, it is predictable. In a tolerant society, people will always be against homophobia. If one knows the reaction will be negative, is it really right to say it anyway? By still speaking, speakers are causing the danger. Furthermore, we can't 'choose' our reactions. Our opinions are highly influenced by that of others; 90% of people adopt the same religious beliefs as their parents. They're contagious. Any belief that discriminates against people will inevitably cause a negative reaction. Additionally, a speech that is demeaning to a group can be labelled as dangerous as it is verbal assault. This can impact self-esteem and cause long-lasting psychological harm. This is dangerous. A speech can even danger the speaker. President John F. Kennedy's death can be purely attributed to him giving a speech.
Ultimately, speeches will always be dangerous as they can reach a substantial amount of people and there is power in numbers. Slander a company and it can go bankrupt tomorrow with all it's employees financially harmed. Speak negatively about another country and a war could arise. But this power can also be used for good; rebellions against a dictatorship can arise or inequality can be addressed as Martin Luther King did. Only speeches that are clearly conducted to offend people with no positive aim in mind should be banned. This way, we can promote healthy discussions, equality, and justice and as a result, live in a better tomorrow.