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.
You're misinformed if you think children above 1st graders have never heard the "f bomb." Also, what's the problem with them hearing a word? Can you explain how hearing an expressive curse word ruins your child's innocence? I mean, seriously, you sound like the type of parent that would never let their kid watch SpongeBob until their 16.
It's about use of the term being normalized. Children mimic the behaviour they observe. When they see people using curse words casually/often, they are less likely to see it as something to be avoided. This doesn't apply to all kids, but it does to some, hence the concern some parents have.
