No, sorry, but that's simply unreasonable. It's the "rights without responsibilities" argument. What gives you or anyone the right to offend others ("offensive or not")?
Would you support putting artistic pictures of rape on public display where anyone could see them without warning? If not, why support putting offensive language on public display without warning? It's the warning that's key here, not the language itself. Without it you are taking away peoples right to choose.
I completely support anyones right to use whatever language they think is apropriate. What I don't support is their presumed right to do so regardless of the offence/damage they cause.
I don't support controls that say "you must not say this or that". I do support controls that safeguard peoples right to choose what they listen to/read/see - in other words controls that make you or I take account of the offence we might cause, and as a result enhance free speach.
To give another example of a simillar argument to yours, should we have to accept that people have the "right" to party into the small hours at full volume regardless of who they might be disturbing? Of course they don't, because by doing so they are taking away the rights of others. They have the right to enjoy themselves yes, but with those rights come responsibilities. And if people can't take on those responsibilities themselves, then unfortunately controls have to be put in place.
Just because you don't find something offensive, does not mean others are wrong if they do, and it is no more right to say "anything goes" than it is to say "nothing goes". Both attitudes take away the freedom of other people.
And no, language is not trivial. It's the primary way in which we communicate, and as such the way it's used is critically important to how we all get along. Anyone who can't addapt their language to suit their audience has not yet learned to communicate.  |