Offense in the eye of the beholder

I am a huge believer in freedom of speech. I will argue with my dying breath that we should be able to say anything we want to whenever and wherever we want to. I'm firmly behind Mr. Allen Jasson of Australia who was kicked off a flight to London because of his t-shirt, a picture of George W. Bush with the words "World's number 1 terrorist". The airline deemed it 'offensive.'
I will admit that freedom of speech must be contingent on our own better natures to some degree. I will argue your right to wear a t-shirt that says "I like to fuck small animals" to a kiddie park but I will also argue that if you choose to do so, you are a shit.
Having said that, calling Dubya a terrorist is obviously not offensive in the four-letter word sense. So the airline must have decided that the offense of the shirt was based on the ridiculous and extraordinarily vague "potential to offend other travelers."
Perhaps we should decry the appearance of any animal logo as offensive so all the uptight Izod-wearing bigots who could be disgruntled at the thought that someone might not like the fear-mongering policies of our current puppet-in-chief would have to remove their shirts as well.
Then again, thinking on the potential sea of pasty chests that would be bared, maybe this is more punishment than anyone should have to endure.