The Right to Offend

Do we have the right not to be offended, or to offend?

This question is troublesome. Firstly with the term "right" and secondly with the term "offend".

Rights are a more complex concept than they appear.

First and foremost, because rights often contradict each other. Example, the right to practice religion contradicts the right to freedom of speech and the right to life, as some religions practice honour killing, child marriage, death for apostasy and punishment for blasphemy.

The right not to be offended protects the offended from the offender. But the right to freedom of speech necessitates the right to offend. If we have right not to be offended, then we have no freedom of speech.

The term offend is a verb that requires an object being offended.

It therefore is impossible to offend when no one is offended.

If someone feels offended, then we say there is an offender.

So, an offender only becomes an offender after their action affects a person who is offended.

Further, anything can potentially be offensive. If you cannot say anything offensive before you say it, but only know it is offensive after it is said, there can be no such thing as an offense.

The thing said only becomes offensive after it is said. Until a thing said is offensive, it cannot yet be offensive.

Further, what happens when you are offended by someone who is offended by you?

Now you've offended each other, you are both offensive.

Further still, can someone be offended by a belief, even when not spoken?

Yes you can. We can be offended by the beliefs of Catholics on homosexuality. We can be offended by the beliefs of Muslims on polygamy, female genital mutliation.

We can be offended by a system of beliefs, let alone their expression, let alone an individual holding them.

We can be offended by a system of beliefs that makes its way into our laws without any conversation between us and the government that puts them into place.

Many of us are offended by religion. Religious people do not intend to offend, but because we are offended, we attribute the offense to an outside actor who we say caused the offense.

How can you be held to be the cause of a person's feelings? Surely their being offended is a consequence of internal causes, such as their beliefs, their sensititvities, their resilience.

All of these mad statements are only possible if we agree that offense is a creation of the offended not the offender.

It is now clear that offending is a poor candidate for being protected by a right.

The right not to offend is a free pass to anyone doing anything or saying anything.

Anyone could claim a right to kill because to be stopped would be offensive to them.

And what is offense? It is a feeling we get when we are upset. Should we enforce a right that only protects people from feeling sad and upset, and hold that right above the freedom of speech?

No.