Who Gets to Decide What’s Reasonably Offensive?

In every culture, every country, and every community, the boundaries of what is considered reasonable speech shift and blur. What may be tolerated in one society could be deeply offensive in another. Even within the same culture, what was acceptable ten years ago might be frowned upon today. This raises a difficult question: Who gets to decide what is “reasonably offensive”?

The debate often centres around two principles: freedom of speech and civility. Should we prioritise the right to say what we believe, even if others find it offensive? Or should civility take precedence, placing restrictions on what we can say to avoid discomfort or hurt? These values can, at times, be in direct conflict.

Offense Is Given, Not Taken

The saying “offense is given, not taken” reflects an important idea: you are responsible for your actions, not other people’s reactions. While it’s courteous and kind to be mindful of how our words may land, it’s unreasonable—and often unfair—to hold one person responsible for another’s feelings.

At its heart, this saying suggests that offense requires intent. If I speak without knowing that my words are offensive to you, then I’m not giving offense—it can only be taken. Only once I know what offends you can I deliberately choose to cross that line, at which point offense becomes something that can be given as well as taken.

This distinction matters, because it affects how we frame responsibility in conversations about speech. Should society put the burden of proof on the speaker, demanding they show their words are harmless? Or should the burden fall on those who wish to restrict speech, requiring them to prove it is harmful?

Civility vs. Free Expression

Every society balances civility and free expression differently. In some places, civility is valued so highly that certain opinions are restricted or silenced for the sake of harmony. In others, free expression is seen as the bedrock of democracy, and the right to say something—even if offensive—is protected fiercely.

The challenge is that civility can sometimes slide into control, and freedom can sometimes slide into cruelty. Which matters more: protecting the right to speak freely, or protecting individuals from words that wound?

Good Intentions and Overreach

Another complication is when people assume they know what’s best for others. Often, restrictions on speech are framed as protective—shielding vulnerable groups from harm. But when we take responsibility for how others might react, we risk overstepping into paternalism. We strip people of their agency, assuming fragility rather than resilience.

Of course, none of this is to excuse deliberately cruel or harmful speech. But it does highlight the complexity of holding one person accountable for another’s emotional state. Sometimes, what we intend as neutral or even kind may be received as offensive, and no amount of foresight can predict every possible reaction.

Towards Balance

Perhaps the real answer lies in balance. We can hold freedom of speech as a fundamental right, while also cultivating civility and compassion in how we use it. We can recognise that words carry weight, but also that personal responsibility for emotions cannot rest solely with the speaker.

In this way, “offense is given, not taken” serves as a useful reminder. It highlights the limits of our control and the importance of intent. Speech shapes societies, and how we navigate offense—deciding when it is given, when it is taken, and when it is worth restricting—will always be a reflection of the values we choose to uphold.