I’m not sure that I agree with with this. Discussing offensive subject matter (like for instance whether the movie a Serbian Film should be banned because of scenes depicting the rape of a baby right out of the womb and necrophilia among other things) is one thing but what about being offended that some one is gay because a book said they shouldn’t be?
Sure a scenario like that can trigger discussion but it’s usually of the blah blah blah (I’m not listening) variety. Where the party who created the offense believes that they have the right to impose restrictions on others and that their opinions hold more weight because they think they know what’s best. Like a rich trophy wife trying to close down fast food restaurants because she believes that fast food is getting people fat. She doesn’t think that these people have any sense because in her mind giving children fast food is child abuse.
I am all for enforcing nutritional data for restaurants and causing them to display real portion sizes, since one of the contributing factors to obesity is portion distortion. But how can a women who wants for nothing believe she has the right to impose restrictions on people who simply speaking do not have enough money to eat healthy due to the growing gap between the rich and poor?