Commonly, free speech is limited where someone is encouraging violence against a person or group (hate speech), or when there is measurable harm done to a person (defamation). Being triggered because someone voice a different view about a political subject is neither hate speech or defamation, but it is something which "safe spaces" has recently been made to restrict.
I haven't been following this very closely which is possibly why I haven't seen an example of this "political triggering" claim. Do you have some examples?
> Commonly, free speech is limited
I think you're talking about the governmental limits on free speech there - private individuals and institutions have no such constraints and can limit whatever speech they want (within the bounds of legally-mandated discrimination, obviously) because (as I understand it, I'm not a US lawyer) they're not bound by the First Amendment.
As a rightwing, small 'c' atheist UK conservative I'm daily offended by what I consider an avalanche of vituperative 'free speech' by people who do not hold my views. I'm happy to live with that and argue my corner. Exclusive of violence, those with different ideas in their heads can insult me as much as they like; it's their arguments to which I'll be attentive. Maybe I'll even be persuaded on some issues.
Ideologies whether political or religious must be subjected to strong criticism or we're all finished on this planet.
I don't have a problem with avoiding certain subjects if I know someone has serious problems dealing with e.g. memories of something that's happened to them. Nor would I have a problem changing the subject or being more careful about working if someone points out that it is uncomfortable for them.
But I would mind having to pre-emptively self-censor because someone might take offence at something that is not intended to offend.
Personally, if someone started talking about wanting to censor on this kind of basis, I'll insist I'm being triggered and they're causing me distress - I'm sure that would lead to an interesting conversation.
Just because -you- don't mean it to offend or -you- don't believe it's offensive doesn't mean it isn't -to someone else-.
> I would mind having to pre-emptively self-censor because someone might take offence
Don't you do that anyway? I do that every day - at work, to my nephews, to my parents, to strangers. What's the big deal?
I haven't claimed otherwise.
> Don't you do that anyway? I do that every day - at work, to my nephews, to my parents, to strangers. What's the big deal?
The big deal is not self censoring, which yes, we all do out of politeness and respect. The big deal is being forced to self censor things we consider appropriate to talk about in context out of the concern that someone present might possibly find it offensive, rather than being able to rely on anyone present who finds offensive to be able to speak up or leave.
If I'm having a political discussion, and were to feel forced to not express my opinion because someone might take offence, I would be largely unable to express my political views, for example. If everyone were to avoid saying things about politics I find offensive, I could effectively shut up debate by entering pretty much any political debate.
> and were to feel forced to not express my opinion because someone might take offence, I would be largely unable to express my political views, for example.
That would be problematic for you (and I fully agree that it can be effectively used to silence political dissent) but you don't have an automatic right to express those views wherever, whenever, and to whomever you wish anyway.
I don't generally intend to offend. But I often intentionally state my opinions of things knowing it might offend someone. E.g., if at a political debate, I won't avoid stating my view just because someone might take offence. The intent isn't to cause offence, and I will respect it if I know there are people present that find a specific subject particularly difficult, but I don't believe we should accept that people have a right to not be offended if they choose to participate in a meeting knowing certain subjects will come up.
> but you don't have an automatic right to express those views wherever, whenever, and to whomever you wish anyway.
I have not suggested I do. But that does not mean I should not take severe offence if e.g. an organization like a student union effectively shuts down meetings where views the majority doesn't like, but that some students want, are likely to come up by insisting on "safe spaces".
I have yet to be at any political meeting that would be a "safe space" if you insist on offending no-one, for example. But these means of censorship are unsurprisingly being applied in exceedingly one sided ways. Incidentally a lot of the people that regularly gets a platform at many of these places are people whose views I find deeply offensive.
You can believe that but also still believe that people shouldn't be free to cause wilful offence under the protection of "free speech" (which, as we all know, isn't guaranteed anyway.)