Every now and again, I'll come across a news story about a pub that has caused outrage with a promotion, more often than not because it suggests a link between drinking and sexual success (because as we know, alcohol plays absolutely no part in the likelihood of someone getting laid at the end of a night out) or possibly involves 'sexist' imagery or language. Frequently, it's a combination of the two. Normally, these are a storm in a local teacup that go no further than a bit of space filling in a local paper. The last couple of days have seen a typical example of this sort of story, but for reasons unknown – presumably it's a slow news day – it's spread to the national news, being reported by both The Guardian and the BBC. More significantly for me, rather than being some townie bar in a place I've never even visited, this story involved a pub I'm pretty familiar with.

Here's the background. The Old Angel is a city centre pub in Nottingham. Smack in between the ultra trendy area of the Lace Market and the hipster haven of Hockley, it stands out as a defiant blot on an otherwise fashionable landscape, being a rough 'n' ready punk rock pub. It's regular clientele are a motley crew of punks, metalheads and general alternative types, and it doubles up as a live venue for bands, who play upstairs – we've run reviews of gigs held here from time to time. It's probably fair to say that this is a pub where you will either feel instantly at home or immediately alienated from, given how determinedly unfashionable it is.

It's not a pub I visit regularly these days, though I have done so in the past. But I think I have a good understanding of the general vibe of the place. So when I first saw the poster advertising their 'alternative speed dating night', it seemed entirely appropriate for the pub. At the same time, I was immediately aware that it could potentially ruffle feathers if it was seen by the sort of people who would never set foot in the pub. And displaying it prominently in the window did just that. Like I said, the Angel is the exception, not the norm, where it is. Its mere existence is a provocation for some.

Now, I have to say that I didn't much care for the poster, initially for aesthetic reasons. “Bag a slag, grab a hag” feels like a very awkward slogan, quite frankly, and of course there is the spelling mistake - “Febuary” indeed. That's the sort of thing that irks me. But in general, it felt like it was in keeping with the pub's punk rock attitude, down to the Misfits-referencing “Die Die My Darling” text and artwork.

But of course, it was obvious that the wording would cause anger amongst people who don't share that punk rock attitude. I couldn't necessarily disagree with some of those complaints. And so I found myself rather torn by this. I have no desire to defend the way this event was promoted, which I think was misguided, ugly and crass. But I do feel that they have every right to be misguided, ugly and crass, just as people have a right to disapprove of it.

The use of 'slags' and 'hags' was the most immediate issue, with complaints about the sexist language (though, arguably, it doesn't specify that the slags or hags are female - 'slag' certainly can apply to men, as anyone who likes to misquote The Sweeney would tell you). 'Slag' is a damned ugly word in any context. Despite claims of empowerment from the pub, I don't see anyone reclaiming 'slag' in the way people are doing with 'slut'. Slut is something that people can easily decide not to take as an insult and instead wear as a badge of honour. It's actually a pretty cool word. Slag is just grim and makes you think of the lowest dregs of humanity. So I understand why it would get people's backs up. The use of that word would certainly put me off going to the event (because honestly, who on Earth wants to “bag a slag” anyway? Even people looking for casual sex would be repulsed by that phrase, I imagine).

To confuse things further, the “Die Die My Darling” quote has also caused offence. Here, context is everything. The people who drink in the Angel - and who this is aimed at - would recognise it as a Misfits song. The people offended wouldn't. To them, this is not a song quote as much as an invitation to domestic violence. Much more than the 'slags and hags' issue, this is a culture clash that I suspect can never be solved.

Now, if you are offended by something, you have several acceptable options. You can, of course, simply ignore it, though few people seem willing to do that these days. You can boycott the thing that has offended you – and if the wording on the poster was something that most women did find widely offensive, then the night would be a crashing failure because none of them would attend. You can complain about it – there are plenty of outlets, from Facebook and Twitter to blogs and forums, for people to voice their disapproval of something. You can complain to the venue and hope they will decide you are right and rethink their advertising. And, if you feel especially strongly, you can protest outside the venue. These are all legitimate avenues to express your disapproval of something.

Any or all these options allow debate, discussion, free expression of opinion and exchange of ideas. They might well result in making a promoter aware of issues that they hadn't previously considered, because let's face it, we're all individuals and often see offence in very personal terms. Telling someone why you are upset by something can often allow that person to see things from another point of view. They might not ultimately agree with your opinion... but then again, they might. Equally – and just as importantly – you would need to be open to hearing their opinion and be willing to have your own mind changed by information and context provided. Unfortunately, the internet has not really led to a free exchange of ideas as much as to the entrenchment of belief by all sides, so perhaps this is wishful, idealistic thinking on my part.

What doesn't seem acceptable is complaining to the local council's licensing committee, and for that committee to then threaten the bar with the loss of its drinks license if they didn't cancel the event. But with five people complaining, that's exactly what happened. Now, think on this. They weren't simply told to pull the drinks promo or change the wording. They were told to cancel the entire event or face closure. That seems to be something of an abuse of power, and one I would hope even the people offended by the poster would be somewhat shocked by, unless they really believe their sensibilities are more important than several jobs and livelihoods. Deputy leader of the local council Graham Chapman (who I assume is somewhat less in favour of the freedom to offend than his Monty Python namesake) is quoted by the BBC as saying "this pub was labelling woman as slags. It was then encouraging them to get drunk by offering free shots, then inviting a lot of blokes along to get drunk along with them with some expectations." Which is mixing fact with opinion and supposition, quite frankly. It's also making a moral judgement about which words can and can't be used, and that seems something that we shouldn't be allowing politicians to do.

It does seem to be the free shots aspect that allowed the council to make this rather outrageous threat (this is both sexist and possibly illegal under equality law), though tellingly, Chapman would not confirm that there would have been no interference without the offer. But one would hope not. Because no one should face the loss of their business just for causing offence to people who don't even frequent the place in the first place. The fact is that, as we've been told most recently in the outrage about Lib Dem candidate Maajid Nawaz and his tweeting of the Jesus and Mo cartoon, offence is something that can only ever be taken, not given. What offends you might not offend me, and vice versa. Neither opinion is the 'correct' one, because it's all entirely subjective. There are laws against hate speech that encourages violent behaviour, but we should be very wary about extending that to merely 'offensive' material, because the person who decides what is or isn't 'offensive' is unlikely to be someone who will always agree with us, but rather someone who always plays it safe. Look at internet filtering, where LGBT and sex education sites have been included in the material to be blocked. Would we want the sort of people who think that way to be deciding what is or isn't offensive?

We should be able to boycott, to protest, to condemn and to complain. We should all be able to criticise those who do things we find offensive (and likewise, they should be able to criticise us right back when we do so). But we should not be able to use the law to stop them from doing it. We might lose 'hags and slags' nights, but we'll also probably lose anything remotely edgy, challenging or contentious. In the past, that might include things that have led to the limited freedoms we all now enjoy.

No one has the right to never be offended. Everyone has the right to say things that others will be upset by. We all have to put up with things that are crude, crass, tasteless or morally objectionable, because that means we can also say and do things that others find objectionable. And sometimes we have to defend things that we might not personally approve of. It's the price we all have to pay if we want to live in a pluralist, diverse and open society and it's something we should defend at all costs. God knows, the governments of the last decade have done everything they can to chip away at those freedoms of expression without us encouraging them to go further.