The Only Way is Ethics: For the sake of freedom of speech, there can never be a right not to be offended

One of the great joys of language is its evolution, which has perhaps never been as rapid as it is today. The development of new technologies has introduced us to countless innovative terms (last year’s Oxford English Dictionary saw additions including “e-cig”, “pageview” and “sext”), while globalised communications have helped shape changes to the way some words and phrases are employed and understood.

This has helped to raise awareness of the largely unacceptable nature of some expressions which might previously have been in common. Indeed, there has been considerable debate in recent years about how outmoded language can cause offence. Much of that has been beneficial, although it has morphed especially in the last twelve months into discussion of whether individuals have the right not to be offended.

That discussion has found particular expression in the practice of “no-platforming”, whereby individuals who hold controversial views have been prevented from visiting university campuses. Students, in popular discourse, are now so worried about finding words upsetting that lecturers have to give trigger warnings when talking about themes which might cause distress.

Some of the media handwringing has exaggerated the degree to which free speech is imperilled by the fading violets who apparently populate our universities. The row at Oxford University about the appropriateness of various monuments to Cecil Rhodes around the city was arguably a good advert for the debating spirit of undergraduates, rather than a cause for concern. Furthermore, the trend towards finding offence at the first hint of controversy is hardly one to which British media commentators are immune. In fact, they might have started it.

Still, in an environment of greater sensitivity, it is the ability to discern context and intent which appears most at risk: words and expressions are increasingly considered offensive in and of themselves, without it being necessary to examine the reasons for their use. And while there are plenty of nasty terms which are generally given a wide berth, others are less obvious.

An article published recently on The Independent’s sister site, indy100, referred in its headline to an individual “having a paddy”, to mean tantrum. A handful of readers complained, citing the expression as an example of casual prejudice against Irish people. The phrase is thought to originate from the word “paddywhack” , which described an “Irishman given to brawling”, but has entered common parlance without, I suspect, much thought for its derivation – although perhaps in this instance some further thought would be a good thing.

Another example that comes to mind is the phrase “cheap date”, which featured recently in an article about sexism. The question arose as to whether this term is intrinsically offensive, given that it might be used in a derogative way (usually by a man) to describe someone (probably a woman) who is sexually promiscuous. Yet it has also taken on a different, non-pejorative meaning, to describe a person (of either gender) who doesn’t have particularly expensive tastes. In this case then, context has to be vital.

There are others too. What about “gone native”? Or perhaps “no can do”, which is widely used yet originates – presumably with humorous intention – from an imitation of Chinese Pidgin English. Does that history make its employment in modern vernacular beyond the pale (there’s another one)?

It is a rare person who has never been offended by anything, and anyone who takes offence at the actions or words of another ought not to have their concerns dismissed out of hand. Likewise, it feels like a decent rule of thumb in life not to go about intent on causing offence. But for the sake of freedom of speech, there can never be a right not to be offended. Nor is it intellectually honest to claim that any given term must be avoided whatever the circumstances. Look hard enough, and you can find offence in most things – but energy may be better employed in more productive endeavours.