> No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. Yes this is the principle of offense. > It sounds like the argu

> No one has a right not to be offended. And free speech isn't really free if it can't offend. Yes this is the principle of offense. > It sounds like the argument for trigger warnings is that some people think they might be harmed by speech. Yes this is the principle of harm. > That doesn't sound like a very good reason to try to limit free speech. All of our freedoms are granted up until the point where our actions would cause harm to others. At this point our freedoms are infringing on the freedoms of others, and their expressions become restricted. In this regard, speech is and has been no different from any other right - although it sounds like you have an argument for why speech should be allowed even when it causes harm to others? (Wikipedia on the harm principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)