If I've got this right, a supreme court decision in Canada has declared that the truth, a truth can be considered illegal if it offends someone? That speaking the truth on something can be considered wrong, a hate crime, if a specific group feels sufficiently threatened or offended by it? Interesting. So, if I'm an academic in Canada let's say, and I do a study that seems to suggest that acceptance of gay marriage does indeed contribute to the hollowing out of the traditional ideal of marriage and therefore can arguably be seen as having a negative impact on a society - and this is just a study, it's just numbers, data that can be debated, I'm not stigmatizing gays in any unfair way nor clamoring for a ban on gay nuptials - it's just a study that finds that gay marriage may not be the innocuous, anodyne thing supporters claim of it, in Canada speaking this potential truth could land me in jail? Wow. And how long before something like that comes to the US?
I get the idea that certain unsavory types may be inclined to use facts in malicious ways - and if an intent thereof is to do harm to a person then that intent should be subject to legal purview - but to explicitly put the extremely vague and vaporous and utterly manufactured 'right' to not be offended ahead of the right to free speech and expression is insane - clearly you're opening the door to abuses that lead inexorably to a person's opinions eventually being deemed nothing more than mere expressions of royal writ, an allowance one is granted on a highly provisional basis. As Murphy states in linked article: how remarkable it is the way liberal pleas for tolerance so often seem to invoke intolerance to defend their cause.
