thought police at your service. now with phones everywhere who knows what's next !

What do you mean by that?

I think there should be laws protecting against certain forms of discrimination (it should be illegal to refuse to hire someone based on their sexuality, or pay them less based on their gender, and so on), but what do you mean by "offended"?

I ask because... I'll go with a specific example that I think is quite relevant right now... Germany has a ban on all things "Nazi", and it actually seems to work for them (I'll admit that I could be missing information seeing as I'm not a resident and have, in fact, never been there). I think the existence of Nazis is not only offensive, but dangerous. Yet in the US they are marching in our streets... one even murdered a woman in Charlottesville. Should there be any laws addressing this? What kind of laws?

To be frank, I really hate the debate around "free speech". So many people fail to realize that, in the US, the 1st amendment doesn't protect your speech from society... only the government. You have the freedom to say, for example, that you hate the current president and can't wait to vote him out. The government can't throw you in prison for that.

You also, technically, have the freedom to say that you believe in the "superiority of the white race"... the US government cannot technically throw you in prison for that, either. However, people have the right to respond to you. Private colleges/universities have the right to deny you a platform. Blogging networks and social networks, as they are private (that is, not funded by the government) have the right to ban you. Everyone else has the right to shun you, and make you a social pariah. I'm someone who firmly believes that Nazis should be terrified of spouting their nonsense in public, simply because of the social repercussions (I actually don't have a problem with Nazis being punched in the face, for example... I dedicated a whole series of posts on my blog to this, in fact).

The fact is, the first amendment does not guarantee you a platform for your speech, nor does it protect you from private spaces and society itself.

Further, the first amendment is not all-encompassing. There is such a thing as "unprotected speech" (threats, "fighting words", etc), and there's a continual debate over whether or not "hate speech" should be covered by the first amendment... I think it shouldn't, but I also think that such a restriction should be heavily limited.

I should add the disclosure that I am often accused of being an "SJW" (which I consider a compliment) and consider myself a proud officer of the PC Police, so that should perhaps put my views into perspective. The whole debate around "free speech" is a complicated one, and I don't think it serves to simplify it to intentions, because intent isn't magic... if you said something racist, your intentions make no difference... it was still racist.

Oh and... as someone who was bullied to the point of being suicidal (with three thankfully failed attempts in my past; also, I'm fine... not only am I no longer suicidal, but I have hopes to live longer than anyone else in my family ever has, now)... "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is an absolute lie. "The pen is mightier than the sword" is a cliche for a reason. Words can be the deadliest weapons of all. People don't "decide" to be offended. If someone is offended by something you say, that's not their fault. All you need are words to kill someone, especially if they already suffer from depression.

If I express an opinion with no intent to offend but someone is offended (trying to think of a hypothetical example here... say I tell a group of fundamentalist religious folk that I believe there's nothing wrong with being gay and that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children), then that shouldn't be illegal even if the religious people get really upset by it. If, on the other hand, I walk up to a gay couple in the street and scream "you're going to burn in hell, you dirty fags," with every intention to offend, then I deserve to be arrested.

The difference, I think, is that in the first scenario I didn't intend to be abusive, whereas in the second I did. Therefore, I support laws designed to prevent people deliberately offending others in an abusive way, but not to punish those who cause offence without the intention to be abusive.

The reason I asked the question was because offence gets talked about quite a bit where I am. (Melbourne, Australia). I struggle with the use of offence as a reason not to do something because it varies from person to person.

Seems like a horrific violation of free speech. There's no inherent right to not be offended.

You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you.

I feel offended that you don’t have a profile photo while I do. However, I don’t feel there should be a law because I feel offended about this. It’s more like my opinion, and is, for the most part, meaningless.

Get over it?

In all honesty if we give in to every conflict of someone being offended , eventually we'll be fighting amongst ourselves for someone being offended . Its a never ending cycle of the human race and its insationable desire . Lol the saying we'll never be content has more truth than we think.

If we are to punish people for being offensive, I demand that I be the arbiter of what is or is not offensive, since I'm the only one who really knows.

I don't think it should be against the law to be a fucking asshole, if that's what you're getting at.

That right there is one of those slippery slope thingys.

Good manners should be the only governance on speech. You can stop someone from saying a racist comment, but that won't stop them from being a racist. It will most likely do the opposite.

That's treading into some dangerous territory. Different people are offended by different things. Some people may inadvertently say something that someone else finds offensive, and what then? Should they be punished for it? I don't think so. What if you're simply stating a fact and someone takes it personally and takes offense? Saying offensive things can make someone an asshole, but it shouldn't make thema criminal.

I find the idea . . . wait for it . . . offensive.

I think a balance needs to be struck between people being offended and people being caused harm.
For example making an image of the prophet Mohammed will cause a lot of offence to a lot of people but does it actually cause harm? I'm not sure. Where as saying that all people of a particular ethnicity are thieves and rapists will undoubtably cause harm to that group.

A very stupid idea. Everyone has their own idea of what offends them. One person is offended by something another person would not be bothered by. It would be just as bad as the current laws based on "morality".