> humans can easily distinguish between freedom of expression and an offense.
Offense is interpretation. This is fundamental to Liberal Theory.
In some cultures, some things are considered racist, in others they are not. see: "Black Person Toothpaste" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie (In China, a popular brand of toothpaste. In the UK, US, and I'd hope much of Europe, the name and the packaging would be considered extremely offensive[1].)
If "humans" don't agree on what's offensive (as I have proved with the toothpaste example), then something isn't "offensive" in and of itself; offense is an opinion about the object ("We think this opinion is offensive"). You can hardly convict someone of "causing our people to interpret something as offensive".
Offense is interpretation. This is fundamental to Liberal Theory.
In some cultures, some things are considered racist, in others they are not. see: "Black Person Toothpaste" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie (In China, a popular brand of toothpaste. In the UK, US, and I'd hope much of Europe, the name and the packaging would be considered extremely offensive[1].)
If "humans" don't agree on what's offensive (as I have proved with the toothpaste example), then something isn't "offensive" in and of itself; offense is an opinion about the object ("We think this opinion is offensive"). You can hardly convict someone of "causing our people to interpret something as offensive".
[1] although perhaps not in Italy... http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jul/30/italy...