Everything you say is true and I'm conflicted too. Is the possibility that expression of opinion might offend, cause fear or whatever, sufficient cause to proscribe behavior before it occurs? If the presumption of innocence is a valid ethical and moral value, I think we need to act that why. Developing draconian Napoleonic codes (which is what 'official' efforts at PC-ness seem to mandate) seems wrong, patronizing and all the rest. But then, I was brought up to believe the two of three rule, too.
While their are people that beat up and murder gays, bi, blacks, native Americans and so on, the vast majority don't and aren't. Again (and not implying you fit this category) the strident voices for PC speech and action seem to have a fairly low opinion of their fellow human beings on both sides of the fence: That the "expressor" is too morally bankrupt to act civilly (as in the two of three rule above) and that the "receiver" is too weak-willed or whatever to handle the issue. Once we demand that the expressor only say what is "correct" do we also mandate that the "receiver" react according to the PC model?
We need, as individuals, to accept responsibility. The guy (usually) who tells homophobic jokes to his friends at the sports bar needs to be stopped. By his friends. Sadly this doesn't happen. Their failure is no reason for bureaucratic intervention. IMO anyway.
The "two out of three' rule brings up a musically related question: It seems to me that folk music doesn't always follow the rule (especially some protest songs). Should it?
Is there a possibility that folk music might not be politically correct? Is this a good thing? Should I ruthlessly purge my collection? Is there a master list of incorrect words or ideas I could use as a guide? :-)