I reject the concept as a valid standard for evaluating words, statements, artistic projects, or anything else that can, in any way, be classified as "speech," and not just in a legal sense. In a moral and ethical sense. It is one of the few moral and ethical stances that I take publicly.
Here's why. I say something to which you take "offense." You tell me that you take offense. I respond that I take offense at you telling me that you take offense. Whose offense wins the battle of offense-taking?
My offense is not a flippant response. I object to any attempt to tell me what I can and cannot say. I hold free speech as a vital principle, and not merely in a legal sense. Here's a common XKCD cartoon used by people to explain "free speech." Randall Munroe is a little bit of an asshole. I love XKCD, but in this case, no. Randall Munroe is kind of an asshole.
Government power is not the only kind of power. There is economic power. There is the economic power of an employer over an employee, for example. Remember Google and the employee fired for his sexist memo? There is social power in numbers. To use brute power to shut down speech that you find "offensive" and then hide behind legalism does not exonerate you morally, in my eyes. Power is power, and I make no moral distinction. If you believe in free speech, then you can make no moral distinction between governments using their power to shut down speech, employers using their power to shut down speech, crowds using their power to shut down speech, and so forth. If you try to shut down speech merely because you deem it "offensive," and then hide behind legalism and say it's OK because you aren't the government, no, Randall. You are the asshole. And you don't truly believe in the principle of free speech. If there is speech that you don't like, don't listen. Marketplace of ideas. Oliver Wendell Holmes. You don't try to use power to shut down speech you don't like, and then hide behind what the First Amendment doesn't prohibit you from doing. Not if you have a commitment to the principle of free speech.
If you tell me that you are offended, so what? I am offended by your statement that you are offended, because you are trying to control my speech, socially, and that cuts against one of my core principles. I'm 100% serious. (Yes, that does happen occasionally). Does my offense mean that you should be prohibited from telling me that you are offended? Fuck no. It just means that the concept of offense cannot be a guiding principle for determining who is right. Otherwise, you are offended. Therefore, you are right. But, I am offended that you say you are offended, so I am right. But, you are offended at my expression of offense at your offense, so... Round, and round we go.
As a logical principle, taking offense cannot be a guiding principle for anything. You would wind up in a logical loop.
And to anyone who says that the number of people who are offended matters, is it "offensive" for interracial couples to express affection publicly in racist areas, as just one example? That's where you wind up once you start down that road.
Or, you can give up on this silly concept of "taking offense."
Anyone up for some Frank Zappa?