Freedom of speech and what is morally acceptable is what forms our societal norms and values; a collective conscience. This is defined as shared ideas, beliefs and moral attitudes, not an individual’s perspective, but rather a collective understand or moral acceptance. Regarding the Law, it is difficult to distinguish freedom of speech from hate speech, as this would violates such legislation. In recent years, the development of anti-discrimination laws have been further defined to ensure security and safety for both minority groups, moreover once abandoned communities. A clear example was when in 2018, Sweden passed a law that protects members of the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination with penalties of up to 3 years in prison. However, many disagreed as they saw that it could infringe on free speech legislation.
Such legislation are implemented in the interests of national security, public safety and prevention of crime and disorder. Perhaps it’s important to consider whether sweeping statements are of a moral or legal nature. Albeit, the nature of this argument is controversial, as criminalising the incitement of threats or violence can question the limits of free speech limitations. Furthermore, to incite reactions, such as efforts of self defence often incurs a ‘criminal response’. Does this therefore demonstrate that the problem lyes the antagonist or the victim? Despite how opinions are subjected to criticism, without such, what are the deciding factors of right and wrong. Personally, anyone is entitled to an opinion, but to air it to cause harm or to antagonise is a form of social injustice in itself.

We in the United States have freedom of speech. We don't have to like what the other person is saying. We can debate, argue or walk away.

TL;DR: The cornerstone of free speech is the idea that you can have an open conversation with someone else about their views, whether they are personally offensive to you or not.

• The result of a society in which nobody had the right to offend anyone else would be the stifling of individual thought and opinion.

• Even if someone offends you and you believe that what they have said is completely unfounded, you can't deny them the right to have said it. Fundamentally disagreeing with what someone has said is not the same thing as suggesting they did not have the right to say it in the first place.

• This can even be a fertile ground for educating others on issues they don't fully understand. Whether an offensive comment does lead to such a conversation, or whether both people remain set in their ways, the possibility of communication is completely removed when the right of expressing your opinion is suppressed.

Does freedom of speech include hate speech?

• In this context, the right to offend refers to the right to hold opinions or beliefs that some find offensive, and to a lesser extent, the right to verbally abuse someone (which, though arguably subjective, is a crime in most places). It is a hotly-debated topic that concerns freedom of speech and hate speech.

• Many believe that you do have the right to offend others, as you have the right to hold and express your own opinions and beliefs. This is a form of freedom of speech which, particularly in democratic societies, is considered an essential human right.

• However, many others argue that freedom of speech is not an “absolute right” as it has and should have limitations in place to prevent the harm of others. Defamatory language, blackmail, and speech used to incite hatred are already punishable by law in most countries, whilst “offensive” speech is not; many argue that it is subjective whether speech counts as defamatory or offensive. Several recent court cases have ruled against banning offensive speech aimed at LGBTQ people - many disagree with these rulings and argue that they threaten the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ people.

Right, yes. Should you? Probably not, unless I've done something so awful that you feel you need to.

• Just on a strictly personal, one-on-one level, I tend to think that the action of offense is something that works itself out between people. This is certainly not to say that people can't be outright offended, even terminally offset, by someone with whom they're interacting or have some sort of relationship---or people with whom they are interacting and with whom they also have a relationship. But in a general sense, I think that any deep offense that takes place in these spaces will find its way out, whether that's in the form of deeper understanding and a changed relationship, or no relationship at all from that point forward. In the case of a changed relationship, the offender may learn and change their mind, or start to care more for the other person, maybe to the point of placing more importance on incorporating the opposing view than on maintaining, at any cost, just their own. In the case of a lost relationship, the offender might slowly lose other sustaining relationships, as well, perhaps to the (ultimately net-positive) detriment of the offender's very sensibilities which caused unnecessary offense. In both cases, the offense becomes more or less tempered by the conditions surrounding its acceptance or demise.

• Inside of a relationship, if someone finds me to be offensive, I sort of sometimes hope they'll offend me back so that I might learn more deeply. If someone instead offends me for no good reason, continues to do so, and has and makes no desire or effort to change, then the relationship will change deeply. And a lonely person might come away from it, at scale, if this happened enough times across the whole of the world. Empathy, then, would win its way forward, as the offender-for-the-sake-of-offending will desire to accommodate the needs of others for the sake of their own needs as well.

• I'm probably being too optimistic here, and there are probably a good lot of examples that would throw my main argument for a loop. Would love anything that might cast doubt on what I've said!

We have a right to free speech which by nature risks offending others. In my opinion, this is not quite the same thing as 'right to offend...'

• The idea of ‘right to offend’ is used to say that we have a right to free speech, even though free speech can cause offense, which I agree with. The main objection to freedom of speech is that it can cause offense. However, a society without free speech can be just as dangerous as one which prohibits it, as people can completely shut down important dialogues, simply because they are offended. In other cases, governments can punish critics, Egypt being just one good example, an abuse of power.

• This is not to say that anything goes and that free speech should be protected at any cost. People also have a right to security and to not be subjected to 'inhuman or degrading treatment', so there is an obvious tension here if people incite violence or hatred through speech. This is complicated and tricky to police.

• Therefore, I think the phrase ‘right to offend’ is unhelpful and does not have the same undertones as ‘right to free speech’, even though it is intended to mean the same thing. I think it is less that we have a ‘right to offend’ but rather we have ‘a right to free speech, despite the risk that we might offend.’ People don't have a right to offend people for the purpose of causing hurt. The point here is about freedom to express your beliefs and opinions.

• Balancing advocating free speech while encouraging peace and values of kindness and respect is difficult but important. I basically agree with the sentiment ‘I have a right to offend you' but in my opinion, the tone of this phrase slightly misses the mark in describing the nature of our right to free speech.

While you have a right to freedom of speech, meaning you have the right to offend people, that does not mean you are free from consequences.

• Freedom of speech means that the Government cannot infringe on your rights to speak your mind.
• Freedom of Speech does NOT protect you from the consequences of you offending someone, including, but not limited to: them saying their opinion back, them no longer wanting to associate with you, them thinking you are wrong or ill-informed for your opinion, and them being uncomfortable with your presence.
• Previous mention of Discomfort is particularly applicable to hate-speech, and should fellow employees be uncomfortable and employers agree that your words were uncalled for, they have a right to say they don’t agree with your speech and dismiss you from your position.
• You are free to offend, but you are not free from the consequences of your offense

You may have the right to say something but whether it offends me is my choice not yours.