Your point is specious. The people who claim a right not to be offended are engaging in “discussion” only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be discussed. The limits become arbitrary, and grounded in nothing except whatever the current moral panic is. The free speech “absolutist”, such as they actually exist, are of course bounded by the actual law.
I don’t know what your example about Cohen and Jews is attempting to show. Neither example is “violence”.
I don’t know what your example about Cohen and Jews is attempting to show. Neither example is “violence”.