Negative rights also “infringe” on others freedom in the same way you describe: they limit what others can do. The “oblige others to inaction”. The trade off is they (usually) get the same protections.

> The UN has expanded this greatly to positive rights where someone can obligate someone to do something as a right, e.g. you have no right to offend my beliefs.

that's obliging inaction - it obliges someone to not say or do something which offends you - so it is a negative right

The reason why the right to not be offended is a positive right is that I am obliged to find out what might offend you, which is impossible when speaking to a large crowd, and if there is a need to express something along the same ideas I am forced to express it as you would or not at all. Eg if you believe everything is a social construct I can’t express what I think is influenced by biology if it offends your beliefs.

However, you are correct that the line can be blurry and right in general should be granted with great caution.

You're wrong. Enforcing someone to refrain is exactly what he's talking about. You are asking someone to do something if you are asking them to refrain from speaking, as it's their liberty to speak.

> Enforcing someone to refrain is exactly what he's talking about

and is exactly the definition of negative rights. right there. that's the definition. that's it.

Now, you're saying that because "right to not be offended" is a bad idea, and you don't agree with it, that makes it a positive right. But your opinion of it does not matter to the definition.

The definition of "positive right" would be requiring someone else to, say, stand when you enter the room, or always address you as "sir" because you're knighted.

Let me also clarify that I very much dislike any "right to not be offended" and also that these definitions of "positive rights" and "negative rights" is clearly not very useful.