So, that's not an easy question. For Americans familiar with the First Amendment, I am reminded that the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting, and that the right to provoke, offend, and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment.
But that just tells us about the government; it doesn't tell us how we should view things that are offensive. Great art often shocks, provokes, or offends people, often when it is made, before becoming banal at later dates - I mean, it's difficult for us to understand, today, that the Rite of Spring (supposedly?) caused a riot.
But part and parcel is understanding the ways in which the art is both a conscious attempt to make a point (Blazing Saddles as, inter alia, a critique of racism) and the ways in which art unconsciously reflects societal norms (16 Candles, Ghostbusters, Revenge of the Nerds). Arguably, the first generally can be met more positively because that's the intended purpose than the second, even though, in the case of unintentional reflection of societal norms, the artist (creator) never even meant to offend.
But, as far as I am concerned, this isn't about that. As I have stated, if you watch some of these things with an audience today, you really need to explain it. I don't want a child growing up to think that Venkman's approach is funny, or appropriate, in those scenes. If you're a parent, you've probably had some moments of discomfort as you've watched some supposedly great show or movie from your childhood, and it has things that you just didn't remember.
Maybe it leads to some self-reflection.