This "right not to be offended" a part of the article is talking about is such a Trojan horse. Groups are not claiming a right not to be offended, they are clai

This "right not to be offended" a part of the article is talking about is such a Trojan horse. Groups are not claiming a right not to be offended, they are claiming the right to feel "mortally" offended, giving them leverage to pursue goals often not that much related to the original act of offending speech. Since it is the offended who get to define what offends them, the term "right, not to be offended" falls quite short of the actual problem. Everybody already is perfectly free to not feel offended by anything. This right is a given, everywhere. So the only thing remaining to claim is the right to declare stuff as offending at will and force those decisions on others.