This seems like a loaded question. What movement are you referring to that is seeking to establish such a "right"?

I don't care to name it - it is exactly whatever it is. If you don't agree there is such a movement, then duly noted.

The Right to not be Offended

I think everyone has the right to say "no", and typically the force of that statement ought to be respected.

Sounds like the MeToo context, which is one such context where this crops up. Just to be clear that's not the particular movement I'm referring to, although it seems related.

Hot topic lately, which I find rather scary. To be clear, such a 'right' does not currently exist. But there seems to be a movement that seeks to establish it. Anyone care to defend the position that this would be good for society? — Roke

The first amendment of the US constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
is consistently interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and by most intelligent people, as protecting speech (speech being very broadly defined) that may be offensive.

Some speech is not protected. Famously, you cannot call out "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, and so forth. Libel and slander aren't protected. And I suspect (I do not know) that speech that is offensive without any other purpose is not entirely protected.

So much for speech. In as much as some "offense" is a (necessary) risk in a free society, if there is to be such a right, then "offense" is going to have to be pretty carefully defined. I'm thinking that it (indirectly) mostly is, in both civil and criminal law.

There is a duty, on this very site, not to gratuitously offend.

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted). — guidelines

So there is a corresponding right not to be gratuitously offended. In other places, the libel laws establish the right not to have offensive falsehoods spread about one. The BBC has a policy of flagging up material that it thinks some people might be offended by, particularly relating to violence and sex.

So it is the case that such rights are widely acknowledged, not in the absolute, but in a nuanced way that is subject to social reform by either law and/or custom. I don't know why this is scary?

This was touched on in an interview on Channel 4 between Jordan Peterson and a presenter armed with the litany of PoMo and "studies" lines of loaded questioning. This is just as a point of video reference, but it has also appeared in other variants of Peterson's appearances.

In the exchange, starting around 21:43 and proceeding to where the interviewer asks Peterson:

"Why should your right to Freedom of Speech trump a trans-persons right not to be offended?"
His response:
"Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive..."

The idea that someone would have a legal protection, enforced by laws, to "not be offended" is about as scary as it comes as a suggestion of a "right". It naturally lends itself to the abridgement of free speech, of the free flow and exchange of ideas, and of the "search for truth", as stated by Peterson, which is critical for areas and disciplines like science and philosophy. If there was a "right not to be offended", then any authority which is confronted with opposing views is able to shut down discourse by invoking that "right". Even in positions of "non-authority" it would have normal discourse extinguished (more than it already is).

For me, I imagine a creationist who is "offended" by the idea that humans evolved from an earlier branch of primates. Then I imagine them in political power where political discourse is framed with the "right not to be offended"...

So...I did not argue for it....

The first amendment of the US constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
is consistently interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and by most intelligent people, as protecting speech (speech being very broadly defined) that may be offensive.

Some speech is not protected. Famously, you cannot call out "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, and so forth. Libel and slander aren't protected. And I suspect (I do not know) that speech that is offensive without any other purpose is not entirely protected.

So much for speech. In as much as some "offense" is a (necessary) risk in a free society, if there is to be such a right, then "offense" is going to have to be pretty carefully defined. I'm thinking that it (indirectly) mostly is, in both civil and criminal law. — tim wood

First, I think we need to admit to ourselves that what is offensive to one, isn't offensive to another. So, being offended is subjective and is typically the result of how one was raised and what they've been taught.

This movement seems to be one that seeks to limit free speech of those you don't agree with. Someone telling you that you are wrong isn't offensive. If it were, then we have all been offensive in one way or another on this forum. It only becomes offensive when one has made an emotional attachment to their belief.

Everybody already has both the spoken and unspoken right not to be offended. The only thing left to discuss is the psychology of it, which could be very interesting, but it`s psychology, not law, and certainly not philosophy.. Having the right not to be offended does not necessarily convert into that right enabling a second part to avoid a question, or otherwise to entirely, or at all, get off on a charge. None of this has anything whatsoever to say for the right not to be offended though. It may well be legal jargon but in a philosophy forum one works with that which is actually communicated, for philosophy is bigger than mere jargon. The right not to be offended taken as legal jargon then, this should be dealt with case by case. Those that are regularly beaten to a pulp by their partner without complaint, and this is often the case, should generally be afforded no right not to be offended. However, should one be deliberately causing the beatings it could well be they that should be on the stand, for the aggressor may in reality be the victim. I have just experienced a case of this here, I rent rooms. There exists states of mind which might wish to capitalize on an opportunity of being perceived as the victim..

So there is a corresponding right not to be gratuitously offended. — unenlightened

Cited are guidelines which uphold the "respectful and moderate tone...may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming". That highlights the difference between how content is communicated vs the content itself. The guidelines noted are the responsibility of the speaker/writer and that responsibility is upheld by the authorities recognized by the site in judging the post. That responsibility is not on the hearer/reader of the post who may otherwise still be offended by a perfectly respectable and moderate response or OP simply due to the content.

What would be the outcome of that here? If someone was "offended" by what the majority of others, including the moderators, thought was a legitimate post? If there was a "right not to be offended", then any mark of "offensive" would then obligate the moderators to remove what was otherwise considered to be an effective communication of content for open discussion.

I think it comes down to the difference between "offense" at how content is communicated versus the "offense" of the content itself. The line seems to become blurred at times, especially in provocations, but one seems to be centered on the intention of harm while the other is centered on open debate. The versions centered on harm, I think, are pretty universal in the incarnations and so can be ruled against (as per the guidelines stated for the writer of an OP here).

I was actually thinking you might be one to articulate a charitable case for the idea, thanks for responding. I notice a startlingly heavy emphasis on this duty not to offend lately in public discourse. I'm surprised if you really can't see why I might find this trend scary (careful, I'm almost offended by the implications).

I think you touched on something important here - the distinction between rights and duties. I might have a duty not to (gratuitously) offend. Sounds fair, but the qualifier is important. Do you have a duty to ensure I don't take offense?

I think you touched on something important here - the distinction between rights and duties. I might have a duty not to (gratuitously) offend. Sounds fair, but the qualifier is important. Do you have a duty to ensure I don't take offense? — Roke

Well I don't want to distinguish them really except as two sides of the coin. rights are duties seen from the other side, and vice versa. I see it a a matter of balance. We all have a duty to drive safely, with due care and attention and obeying the many rules of the road, and to have insurance, licence, and so on. But my duty does not extend to getting out of your way in every circumstance; when the lights are in my favour, I am entitled to expect cross traffic to wait their turn.

Similarly, if Oxford University wants to have a discussion on the virtues of the British Empire, or does not want to have a discussion on the merits of flat earth theory, they are entitled to do what they like on their own premises, and I am entitled to draw conclusions about them and express them. Or the German government is entitled to make holocaust denial a crime.

Now when it comes to how I am addressed or talked about, it seems to me that whoever knowingly addresses me in a manner they know I find offensive is being gratuitously offensive, or at least the onus is on them to demonstrate otherwise. For instance, I would not be entitled to be addressed as Dr unenlightened MD, because I am not an MD, but if you refuse to address me as Mr unenlightened BA, then I want to know the reason why. ;)

The Peterson BBC interview was quite good, I enjoyed it. Apparently the issue is a bit larger than the case of a delicate snowflake vs. the hot stovetop of Jordan Peterson.

Canadian Senate Bill C-16, passed October 18, 2016

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Peterson objects to any requirement that requested pronouns must be used, else risking liability under the hate crime legislation.

The term "Hate propaganda" makes me nervous, because "hate" and "propaganda" are not very precise terms, and can be variously interpreted by prosecution and defense, both. A person's public questioning of whether there is even such a thing as "transgender" could be considered hate speech. A refusal to use a particular pronoun (perhaps a neologism) could be interpreted as hate speech. Like a transgender persons might mash up she, her, he, him, and person and want to be called by the pronoun "shrimp". "Jerko said shrimp would attend."

Peterson doesn't want to be compelled to use "he, she, him, her, they, or shrimp" arbitrarily.

So Peterson's issue is more than a question of not offending people who claim to be transgendered, it is a question of liability to prosecution under hate speech law.

For instance, I would not be entitled to be addressed as Dr unenlightened MD, because I am not an MD, but if you refuse to address me as Mr unenlightened BA, then I want to know the reason why. ;) — Un

Ah, now I think we're in the transgender context. Another particular movement with good examples of the phenomenon I mean to discuss. Wanting to know the reason would be a perfectly reasonable reaction. And maybe you'd find out I have one (e.g. your degree was clearly photoshopped) or maybe you'd find out I'm just an asshole. That's an important step that seems to be getting skipped lately, in my estimation.

Just watched this, what a great example. Thanks.

I think the right to be, and not be, offended is an important part of political and social discourse. However I don't think it should be a criminal offence if you do offend someone.

Not matter what you say, someone somewhere may be offended. It is completely outside the control of a speaker to prevent this. For example: even if a speaker was to tone down their language in order to placate the dissenters of his/her opinion, the fact that he/she is "sugarcoating" his/her speech can upset the people that wanted to hear him/her speak in the first place. No matter what you say, someone will take offence.
So I don't think it is fair to hold a person accountable if he/she offends someone.

However it is important for members of a society to express themselves when they take offence. This process, I believe, helps a society at large determine whether an idea is "good" or not and build a moral system that can be agreed upon. I see offence as a mechanism people can use to show their disapproval regardless of how eloquent they are and if lots of people are finding a particular idea offensive, we, as a society, have a duty to explore why. Of course, this only works if there is no capital punishment for offending someone; an idea that is offensive is not inherently wrong, and radical, progressive ideas tend to offend a large number of the populous. In this case, it is the responsibility of the speaker to be eloquent enough to convince people not to be offended.

Lastly, I also support the right to not be offended. Personally, someone will find it very, very difficult to offend me with words alone. For example: I'm black and therefore I have been called some interesting and creative racial slurs. I have never been bothered by this and racism has never negatively affected my life. I actually encourage my partners to call me a N****r to desensitize them from the word and prevent them from being offended on my behalf. Which brings me to my point. People should have the right to not be offended so people like me, who just want to get on with life, do not have to worry about our lives being affected by people who are being offended on our behalf. Without the right to not be offended, I feel this could not happen and will cause even more political and social divisiveness then the people that espouse socially objectionable ideas.

Sorry, rambled a bit there.....

And maybe you'd find out I have one (e.g. your degree was clearly photoshopped) — Roke

Indeed, and maybe my genitals have been photoshopped too, and I am not entitled to 'Mr'. Well no, actually, my position is that my genitals are none of your business, and you can take my word for my gender or eff off.

Sure, that's just fine. As long as you're the one who gets to define your own position. Telling me to eff off would be a perfectly appropriate, non-Orwellian, recourse.

So Peterson's issue is more than a question of not offending people who claim to be transgendered, it is a question of liability to prosecution under hate speech law. — Bitter Crank

Yes, however the two are not unlinked. If someone has a "right" to something, that legally entails protections of that "right" by the state, up to and including force. Is that fair to say?

If I have a "right" to free speech, then I can rest assured that the force of the state will ensure I can speak freely and is authorized to force acquiesence (to allow the speech to be expressed) from those who do not wish me to speak as such.

If I had a "right" to "not be offended", then the state is now obligated and authorized to force suppression of the source of my offense, whether it be speech or otherwise.

I got the impression that the purpose of this new Canadian law is to try to formalize transsexual's rights in legal terms of labor, housing, and other areas where bias is possible and that it was not the intent of the law to ban or control informal speech (as I get it).

Actually, I don't know exactly what laws govern free speech in Canada. In the US, the first amendment concerns what the government can and can not do:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Congress can make no law... but your employer can make rules, or you school (if private) can make rules, and one is stuck with those rules. Apparently the first amendment doesn't cover what private entities can do.

There are differences between Canada and the US: The US disallows double jeopardy, for instance, meaning that once one is acquitted of a crime, charges for the same crime can not be brought again. Unless it has been changed recently, Canada allows double jeopardy -- some people and organizations have been prosecuted several times on the same charge, but were acquitted, at least the first time.

I got the impression that the purpose of this new Canadian law is to try to formalize transsexual's rights in legal terms of labor, housing, and other areas where bias is possible and that it was not the intent of the law to ban or control informal speech (as I get it). — Cavacava

That may be, but it does specifically mention hate propaganda, which draws a bead on speech.

Totally agree with your version of the right to not be offended. There's a very important difference between 'we have the right not to be offended' and 'we have the duty not to offend anyone'. Thanks for highlighting that.

My progression was only a proposed logical one of speech to offense to suppression of speech, not existing (or proposed) Canadian or US law.

Congress can make no law... but your employer can make rules, or you school (if private) can make rules, and one is stuck with those rules. — Bitter Crank

Agreed and not just "employer" but also for "campus". Same for surveillance. You can "break" the rules and be supported in the freedom to do so, but you are also free to be retaliated against for same said event.
Makes me wonder what would happen if every US business and any private residence/property, those willing to anyway, banned the carrying of "arms" within their legal boundaries? What would the Second Amendment amount to then?

Hate speech, from what I was advised by my WikiLawyer, states "The (Supreme Court) ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

It was also noted that it "has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action,where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law."

In the same piece:
"Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes: "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."

In the sense of the OP I perceived, the "right to not be offended" is a defense some social activists are using to assert "rights" actually afforded to them and to challenge those that would elect to and act to suppress them. But I think it is misguided and an overcorrection of sorts. At least in the sense that the speech of those that would or may want to suppress the rights of activists is the physical and legal equivalent to other actions that lead to or do actually suppress them.

Indeed, and I think it is a sorely understated difference in the kind of discourse you're referring to.

Here is the exact origin of the modern movement toward "the right to not be offended"...

It starts with the prevailing patriarchy/white supremacy presumption which has been the ideological Zeitgeist of post-modern feminism for the last 50 years.

It also requires the addition of "intersectional feminist theory" which states unequivocally that if you just happen to belong to a demographic that is not the majority or is somehow statistically worse off then another demographic, then you are necessarily oppressed (or necessarily an oppressor) and that the more "oppressed" demographic categories you fall into, the more "oppressed" you actually are.

This is the ground floor of the standard racism = power (read: whiteness/maleness) + privilege (read: also whiteness/maleness) shtick, and it sets up the hardcore "identity politics" rhetoric that dominates the "SJW" movement.

Enter: A gay black trans paraplegic woman. She steps forward towards the microphone and the crowd falls deathly silent.

Here is someone who must be leading one of the most painful and oppressed lives imaginable, and it's clearly all the fault of non-gay-black-trans-paraplegic-women (because statistically they're better off). Not only do we need to listen to every single word that this person has to say (because their "lived experiences" will likely contain more truth than anything anyone else has to say), but to offend this person who has already endured lifelong racism, sexism, prejudice, sexual abuse, and general oppression (statistically) is therefore the most monstrous possible thing that you could do to her, and in fact constitutes the very patriarchal white-supremacist attitudes and forms of oppression which intersectional feminism as a whole is seeking to dismantle and destroy.

By offending someone who is oppressed because of their demographic, you are actually committing that oppression. (in other words, their feelings being hurt by you is why they have problems). Nobody worries about offending white males because it's impossible to be racist or sexist towards one, or to oppress one (because we have all the power and privilege!)... ... ...

There's simply no scientific merit to oodles of the made up pseudo-intellectual bull shit that some of these humanities professors have been festering in for too long, and some of the kids who ignorantly wander into their swamp can never leave. Emotion is the rhetorical vehicle of choice because it's the only way they can reach their previously assumed conclusions...

It turns out that if you try to explain everything in terms of oppression theory, you end up describing everything as oppressive, including having one's feelings hurt.

I think the right to be, and not be, offended is an important part of political and social discourse. However I don't think it should be a criminal offence if you do offend someone. — SnowyChainsaw

I agree.

Not matter what you say, someone somewhere may be offended. It is completely outside the control of a speaker to prevent this. For example: even if a speaker was to tone down their language in order to placate the dissenters of his/her opinion, the fact that he/she is "sugarcoating" his/her speech can upset the people that wanted to hear him/her speak in the first place. No matter what you say, someone will take offence.
So I don't think it is fair to hold a person accountable if he/she offends someone. — SnowyChainsaw

Agreed.

However it is important for members of a society to express themselves when they take offence. This process, I believe, helps a society at large determine whether an idea is "good" or not and build a moral system that can be agreed upon. I see offence as a mechanism people can use to show their disapproval regardless of how eloquent they are and if lots of people are finding a particular idea offensive, we, as a society, have a duty to explore why. Of course, this only works if there is no capital punishment for offending someone; an idea that is offensive is not inherently wrong, and radical, progressive ideas tend to offend a large number of the populous. In this case, it is the responsibility of the speaker to be eloquent enough to convince people not to be offended. — SnowyChainsaw

Well, I agree that we all have free speech, and if someone was offended, then they have the right to say so, but their right doesn't trump someone else's rights. Being offended, or having you feelings hurt should never trump logic and reason. If you don't like what someone said, use logic and reason to counter it, not claim that your feelings are hurt as if that somehow disqualifies a logical and reasonable statement someone had made.

As a matter of fact, that is why people resort to "I'm offended." - because they don't have any logical or reasonable argument to make, so they resort to trying to shut the other person up by claiming their feelings are hurt. Again, one's feelings have no bearing on what is true or not.

The I'm offended" movement is dumbing down society by allowing people to avoid the use of logic and reason in order to maintain some delusion that makes one feel good (safe spaces).

Lastly, I also support the right to not be offended. Personally, someone will find it very, very difficult to offend me with words alone. For example: I'm black and therefore I have been called some interesting and creative racial slurs. I have never been bothered by this and racism has never negatively affected my life. I actually encourage my partners to call me a N****r to desensitize them from the word and prevent them from being offended on my behalf. Which brings me to my point. People should have the right to not be offended so people like me, who just want to get on with life, do not have to worry about our lives being affected by people who are being offended on our behalf. Without the right to not be offended, I feel this could not happen and will cause even more political and social divisiveness then the people that espouse socially objectionable ideas. — SnowyChainsaw

This is exactly what I've tried to explain - that different people can be offended by something that someone else isn't offended by. We need to explain why this is the case BEFORE we just start giving people rights that can override one of our other, more fundamental, rights - free speech.

There are hate speech laws in the UK. Up until 2014 it included "insults". Currently it only covers "threats" and "abuse".

Two articles on the topic (of which the "right to not be offended" is a branch) as a phenomenon on some US college campuses.

On "microaggressions"
"Microaggressions are remarks perceived as sexist, racist, or otherwise offensive to a marginalized social group. Those popularizing the concept say that even though the offenses are minor and sometimes unintentional, repeatedly experiencing them causes members of minority groups great harm, which must be redressed....The University of California system has issued guidelines for faculty members warning that statements such as "America is a melting pot" or "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" could be microaggressions."

"Today, those whose morality is rooted in the ideals of dignity see microaggression complainants and others who highlight their victimhood as thin-skinned, uncharitable, and perhaps delusional. Those who draw from the newer morality of victimhood, meanwhile, see their critics as insensitive, privileged, and perhaps bigoted."

On culturizing microaggression
"In the last few years, activist students and faculty, sometimes with the support of administrators, have increasingly attacked the ideals of free speech.

The new activist culture calls for colleges to confront the small, perhaps unintended slights known as microaggressions, to provide trigger warnings for course material that might offend or upset, and to become safe spaces where ideas go unchallenged. It is characterized by extreme moral sensitivity, and in this way is similar to honor cultures of the past where men were highly sensitive to insults and responded to perceived slurs against their character with duels and other forms of violence."

"The dignity culture that began to replace honor culture in the 19th century cautioned against excessive moral sensitivity. People were taught to have thick skins and to ignore insults. Speech and violence were distinct, as seen in the aphorism commonly taught to young children: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

The new activist culture rejects this distinction, as did the honor cultures of old, and this has had major consequences for the free expression of ideas. For instance, in the honor culture of the antebellum American South, it was dangerous to be a newspaper editor. If a gentleman thought the paper had published anything unflattering about himself or a family member, he might challenge the editor to a duel (if he perceived him to be a social equal) or else simply beat him with a cane or whip."

"Today’s campus activists are concerned with different kinds of offenses: statements they see as slighting members of disadvantaged groups or in some other way furthering oppression. But they similarly view such statements as injurious, as akin to violence. Some go further, arguing that speech they view as oppressive is actually violence. And if speech is violence, universities must prohibit it. If they don’t, activists are justified in doing so themselves as an act of self-defense."

Sorry for the copy and pastes - but these lines manifest in the posts appearing in the thread or summarize them succinctly. I thought it relevant.

Personally, I did not approach it from the sociological view of "honor cultures", which is a very interesting avenue to take.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that some speech "does not convey ideas" and is therefore not protected under free speech. This includes swearing and "fighting words." This in itself doesn't make them illegal; rather it means that a jurisdiction may make laws concerning them.