I think you made a mistake by not defining your terms, by using the word pasifisim and indicating an absolute stance you seem to be against all force including self defense or law enforcement rather than specifically matters of state.

I think a good start would to be to ban knowingly stating an opinion as a fact defining the difference as an opinion being the default and fact being information proved to a sufficient (Maybe ~95%? Depends on surcimstance? Ideas?) degree on an independent standard and have freedom to express opinions trump the right not to be offended but only when there is no way of using the former that does not violate the latter. Also perhaps a law against ranting at people who have expressed dislike of the view and/or speaker but I dunno how this could be enforced. For exsample the almost universally offensive with good reason phrase "Trans people should die because they all have HIV" would be changed by the first to "I think trans people should die because I suspect they all have HIV" would be changed by the second to "I dislike trans people and I suspect they are desies vectors". This is still not good but random assholes may be the cost of not possibly acsidentaly blocking comments with some value some time in the future. At least this is the best general ruleset I can think of without preventing flow of any opinions completely. Also questions, like what if someone wants to ask " do Jews really eat babies?" It's not a nice thing to be asked but what if this person was raised in an isolated and bigoted place and is honestly unsure? An unpleasant question is better than this person continuing like that.
TL:DR I think preventing offensiveness completely could be a problem, like what if there's opinions that can't be expressed without being offensive, it should be said if for no other reason that people should know to avoid that person.

My immediate thought is "Post-truth? What do you mean POST-truth?" that phrase implies that there ever was a time in which appeals to reason were more effective than appeals to emotion. I suspect that the post in post truth arises from mostly from nostalgia(I suspect, please do research on that statement).