The problem is, who/what determines what is true and what is acceptable to say? And how do you prevent that entity from being corrupted or taken over by a bad actor?
Sure, Those are problems, but our current way of dealing with them is "Instead of trying to find those acceptabilities and safeguarding the intent, we're just going to avoid the issue to the detriment of anyone who is not an able-bodied, attractive, straight, cis, white man." Some of them are pretty easy to figure out, in my opinion: 1.) saying that a group of people are objectively bad because of the colour of their skin is not acceptable. Further, saying that some people are not people because of the colour of their skin is not acceptable. 2.) saying that someone is lesser because of their gender is not acceptable. 3.) saying that someone is objectively bad, or lesser because of their sexuality is not acceptable. 4.) saying someone is lesser because of their disability isn't acceptable. I manage to get through my life basically every day without breaching one of those rules. I don't even have to try, it's quite simple. I'm from a country where the concept of free speech is fundamentally different than it is in the US, so the concept of "things you can't say" isn't some Orwellian, 1984-style bogeyman. It's just not being a piece of shit, and being held to account when you are.
I would be okay with those things being laws here in the US. This is my fear, though: As long as the laws are enforced in a way that they prevent hate speech but allow the open and honest discussion of ideas with no cooling effect, all would be well. The problems start when people are afraid to research and discuss topics academically. With any sane person's interpretation of the laws, this would never occur. But the US seems rather insane to me lately.