Free Speech and Free Listening are different.

Taking offence is a decision

At the core of human rights is sovereignty over the body.

If I exercise my vocal cords - it may annoy you (it probably will ;) - but you may move away (or ask for my silence)

What I may not do is impose hearing on you, any more than I should impose silence on you.

To bind you in any way - with the exception of defensive action is coercion or violence (of your sovereignty)

So I can ignore your words or avoid them - unless you are violating me. In which case I may and should resist.

EXACTLY THE SAME applies to someone you move to violence against me. They may ignore you (and should), and maybe I can ignore them.

If they act violently they have no excuse ("Doing My Duty" was the rejected Nuremberg defence and didn't apply at My Lai either)

What is unacceptable is for me to bind them (unless to resist their violence)

Thus punishing free-speech is violence as much as unwarranted incarceration or physical abuse is a violation.

Key message - People offer offence - to take it or not is your choice - own it !

To intend offence (taken or not) is offensive - and some will.

If you can rise above it you are the better person.