Government shouldn't get involved much at all in group politics, but if it should, it shouldn't just be to protect minorities from the majority, but also to protect the majority or other minorities from minorities.
You shouldn't have it only your way, if you want government to protect minorities from 'unreasonable' criticism, than government should also protect the majority from 'unreasonable' criticism, if you want want government to promote and orient its policy around 'reasonable' criticize of the majority, than it should promote and orient its policy around reasonable criticism of minorities.
You are unfortunately missing one basic fundamental point. In a democracy, YOU control the government, you can change it, that's what the vote is all about and how Trump got in. You can never let individuals take control and decide what is acceptable as criticism, because those with the biggest fists, knives or guns will wrest the control from the weaker individuals and shout down and intimidate all opposition. Look at ISIS if you want to see a modern example.
Roger
It's not that I missed your point about democracy, it's that I wasn't sure what point you were making, it sounded like you were saying we should just trust the 'experts' and let them decide everything, and not even have a democracy, or that a democracy was only right insofar as it trusted the experts.
Ideally we're a democracy, but really our government is often out of our control.
For example are you sure most people think you shouldn't be able to question the 'holocaust', or that most people want immigration, period, let alone millions of 'refugees', if that's even what they are?
If we're not allowed to criticize certain religions, like Islam, and the people who take it seriously (AKA extremists), as they grow in popularity in certain regions of the west, these people will run amok, change and flout our laws, and one day in the not so distant future they may even vote in a tyrannical government or stage a coup.
And then they'll be restricting our freedom of speech, and a whole lot more, for all the 'wrong' reasons.
Lastly, I think there's a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, in a democracy it's perhaps the most fundamental freedom.
You see if you forbid people to speak for or against x, then to even suggest that law be lifted, could itself be interpreted as speaking for or against x, and so we run the risk of banning some speech for all time, setting something in stone.
I think having open dialogue is really essential to what it means to be a democracy, you start limiting that, and you're basically saying citizens can't be trusted, or even if it's only for a few 'fools' (if that's really what they are) that can't be trusted, you're still giving up the most important freedom in a democracy, the freedom to assemble, to openly, honestly debate and discuss policy and the issues before casting our votes.