I think it helps to separate the problem into two spheres. I took the article to be arguing that we've blended the two spheres below: On a human, moral level

I think it helps to separate the problem into two spheres. I took the article to be arguing that we've blended the two spheres below: On a human, moral level if someone is offended by something I've said which I didn't intend to cause offence, I'll feel bad about that and apologise. I don't want that to happen. But, on a legal/societal level, the above should not be grounds for losing your job, getting sued, etc. This is certainly the American perspective on free speech - there is freedom of speech, there is no freedom to not be offended.