Now, I'm not from the US, haven't been to a university for quite some years, and so am not personally experienced with what these "safe zones" are about in practice, the politics surrounding them, etc.—but I was trying to say that, if they had any justification at all as a theoretical construct, it was in giving people with PTSD a way to get away from "broadcast all over campus" things like graduation speeches, if and when a planned speech is found to have content that might trigger specific kinds of traumatic stress attacks.
Not because it might offend someone. Not with voluntary ability to leave for any reason one might like. Just a medical excuse from attendance, like a person with acrophobia would get from a field trip to the roof of a skyscraper.
And again, even then, it might be better for those people to just leave the university campus, or avoid coming in the first place.
The biggest irony, which you probably can't even see, is that your own comment is an example of the disturbing and vile speech you claim to hate ("sex dungeon", "POW camp", "Salo"). You didn't need to bring those up to make your point, but you did. Somehow disturbing and vile things like burning the flag and condoning drug abuse never seem to upset the left (and I could go on...), but talking about individual rights and respnsibilities does. Funny how that works.