>behavior that is... offensive

Banning intimidating behavior has a strong argument for it. Banning overtly sexual comments at least has a clear line to it.

But banning "offensive" behavior? I prefer the right to free speech over the right to not be offended.

Not the least because being offended is a blank check for anyone to define their own red line and impose them on others. And some people seem hyper sensitive...

What makes you say that? It would obviously have to seem offensive to the judge, not just to the purported victim. Same as for the other adjectives, like "intimidating", "sexual" etc. I don't see why "offensive" is any more inherently subjective than those.

Is a carricature of Muhammad offensive? Cartoonist have been making carricatures of God and Jesus for years, but most newspapers didn’t dare to publish the Muhammad cartoons. Apparently some people get offended when being called either male or female, even though these two categories are bioligically correct. Etc. Anyone can make up their own definition of what is offensive to them, and many do not hesitate. You seem to treat being offended as if it was an absolute objective thing. And I would certainly not use the word “victim” to refer to someone attemting to limit someone else’ speech on the pretext of having been offended.

My point was anyone can make their own definition of pretty much any word, and still, we have a functioning legal system. Very different from what you've read in my comment.

But I think there's some things we know we can assume are offensive. And there's other things that a person can say "stop it, that's offensive". And that creates an obligation on you under the general principles of good manners.

Now you might not have realised it's offensive. You might disagree - you think it's fun, and legitimately believe most people think it's fun too. But once you've been told to stop, it's pretty clear. It's perfectly okay to be corrected and to learn. And it's normal to behave different with different people.

So it hardly seems like there's a big issue here.

I disagree. It is a very subjective thing. Now you call someone an “asshole”, anyone would be offended. You claim that men tend to be physically stronger than women, a woman tells you “I am offended, you are somehow implying that women are inferior to men, this is offensive to me”. Do you apologise? I think it’s reasonably factual statement. I don’t think everyone should have the right to make up their own red line in term of what is offensive and can be said.

And in this world of twitter lynching, feminist and political correctness mititantism, this is a blank check that you can bet will be cashed in.

If someone is screaming "you claim that men tend to be physically stronger than women" over and over again while you walk alone along a road and you tell them to leave you alone but they keep doing it louder and closer to you than before, deliberatly targeting you, does it matter if it's factually accurate?

This is a fine. It needs a cop thinking a reasonable person would find something offensive to inconvenience you and a judge agreeing for it to be applied.

Have you been to Paris as a reasonably attractive woman or with same? I have done the latter, and that experience taught me why this law is required. Paris is probably the least civilised European capital city I've visited for this type of behaviour though admittedly Brussels isn't far behind. I've never seen this type of thing in London.

> I've never seen this type of thing in London.

This type of thing is everywhere.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/catcalls-whi...

"Nearly half of young women in London were sexually harassed in public last year, with many forced to endure unwanted male attention on buses and trains, a new study shows."

Interesting then, as when I was in Paris it seemed catcalling happened even when I was accompanying my girlfriend, whereas I never had the same happen elsewhere. Perhaps the behaviour when a male partner is present is different.