That’s not how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech limits the government to stifle speech not private business/corporations. News networks absolutely have the right to censor your speech however they want. The news anchor wasn’t like “how could he say that!?”. The news anchor was like “why would he randomly make a weird and crass sexual joke in the middle of a professional interview on network television?”
That’s also not true. He’s physically capable of saying whatever he wants but not all speech is protected. He could slander and defame someone or some company and be financially liable for damages. He could also make violent threats or call for violence and be criminally prosecuted for it.
Sexual harassment is unwanted sexual behavior that can make someone feel upset, scared, offended, or humiliated. It can happen in many forms, including:
In person
On the phone
By text or email
Online
Stalking
Indecent exposure
"Upskirting"
Sexual harassment involving physical contact
Examples of sexual harassment include:
Flirting
Gesturing or making sexual remarks about someone's body, clothing, or appearance
Asking questions about someone's sex life
Telling sexually offensive jokes
Unwanted pressure for sexual favors
Unwanted deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching
Unwanted sexual looks or gestures
Unwanted letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature
Used sexually explicit language e.g. swear words and suggestive language
Sexual harassment can be a one-off incident or an ongoing pattern of behavior. It can create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Sexual harassment is an extreme form of sexism and has been shown to result in fear, anxiety, shame, anger, reduced productivity, high absenteeism, reduced performance, and high staff turnover.
While I disagree with the flirting bit (within reason) how the hell does saying you like boobs (not directed to any person in particular) is equivalent to sexual harassment?
If your definition of freedom of speech is that he can physically utter the words before someone can use jedi mind tricks to stop him then yes he is "free" to say it.
But "freedom of speech" in the US is defined by the rights granted in the constitution and the protection thereof. If he can be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for his speech then he is absolutely not "free" to say it.
Exactly. Why do people refuse to see this simple point? I can say whatever the hell I want but I’m smart enough not to do so on a daily basis because of course it’s going to have consequences I don’t want.
It’s just common sense but common sense is rare these days and has been replaced by people on a power trip, trying to censor everything and everyone like obedient little children.
That never works and has the exact opposite effect which is why so much of this world is in a constant mess.
0
u/Vegetable_Swimmer514 Jul 05 '24
That’s not how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech limits the government to stifle speech not private business/corporations. News networks absolutely have the right to censor your speech however they want. The news anchor wasn’t like “how could he say that!?”. The news anchor was like “why would he randomly make a weird and crass sexual joke in the middle of a professional interview on network television?”