"There are certain harms that are non-actionable, offense is one of them. If I say something that you find is duly offensive, you may protest, you may speak, but what you may not do is to sue me in order to silence me or get compensation from me.

Everybody offends everybody a large fraction of the time.

Those who advocate controlling speech tend to want only their sense of what's offensive to count and nobody else.

Yet the fundamental tenet of classical free speech law is that the rules ought to be "viewpoint neutral". Nobody can use force against nobody, regardless of their viewpoint; but anybody can express his view, irrespective of how offensive everybody else will want to regard it.

Even more complicating, controversial speech often isn't conducted between two people alone but is shouted from the soapbox. How much offense is required before government pulls the plug?

People now have every motivation to ratchet up their level of indignation in order to say, "Look you really hurt me." As a result you make racial, ethnic, religious and social sensibilities an art form.

One recent technique of of doing so is called microaggression. At which point can nobody talk? if you drop the "micro" and keep the aggression then, since you aggressed against me I can now use force against you in self-defense.

This is the part of the modern left wing First Amendment
law which holds that anything you say that offends me is a form of violence to which I can respond with by use of force."

Richard A. Epstein
Professor University of Chicago/
New York University
One of the world's foremost legal academics
America's leading intellectual Libertarian ( he defines himself as "classical liberal)
WSJ August26-27-17

Personal Best Regard