Sexual Harassment and Freedom of Speech

[Moral Orel]

With all the threads talking about attacks on freedom of speech these days, I wanted to discuss one of the biggest violators of the first amendment. It's one thing if an employer fires their employee for saying something they don't like, it's another thing entirely if the government forces them to do so.

First of all, I'm not talking about an employer threatening someone's job if the employee refuses to perform some sexual act. But that could easily fall under solicitation laws since the employer is essentially paying for that sexual act if it occurs.

What I'm talking about is the fact that I can't tell a dirty joke at work without my employer having to worry about getting sued.

If I'm chatting with a friend in the break room, I should be able to describe in vivid detail the most bizarre, depraved, graphic and obscene sexual acts I can imagine without any fear of reprisal. Just because someone is offended by my words doesn't mean we should have a law against it.

Now, who thinks my speech should be limited just because someone is going to be offended or because someone will feel uncomfortable?

 

[Winken]

Profanity, public or private, is an inflammatory, disgusting form of speech. As an employer I would prohibit it anywhere on company property. I would publicly call upon authentic Christians across the USA to file a zillion lawsuits.

 

[Moral Orel]

Profanity, public or private, is an inflammatory, disgusting form of speech. As an employer I would prohibit it anywhere on company property.

I don't necessarily have a problem with employers choosing to fire people if they don't like what they say. There are a lot of threads that call out "attacks on freedom of speech" when companies do just that. But what this thread is about is the government forcing an employer to do that. It's about law, not company policy.

I would publicly call upon authentic Christians across the USA to file a zillion lawsuits.

So then you believe that the government should make laws prohibiting what people can say at the workplace if someone is going to find it "disgusting"?

 

[GuusVA]

Wouldn't it all depend on how far the graphic display of your thought would go?

Well I am not American, but in Europe we have freedom of speech as well, but its still inappropriate to say certain things

IMO Being offended shouldn't limit your speech, However speaking in such a graphic manner (i.e. speaking about rape in a joyful manner) that it is triggering to people who have been through these experiences is a totally different matter and should not be allowed!

 

[Winken]

The Body of Christ MUST enter into fervent prayer that we be delivered from profanity and sexually-oriented or explicit words in public. I'm all in favor of THE PEOPLE electing authentic Christians to the Senate and House, for the same to be appointed to federal offices, including the Supreme and federal courts. Children should NEVER be exposed to these matters, in the same way that we endeavor to prevent childhood diseases.

How long will we remain silent? Get on the Christian bandwagon, folks !!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Point of fact, the EEOC says nothing about punishment for harassment. That is left up to the employer. The government only states that everyone has a right to a harassment-free workplace and that failure to prevent and correct harassment makes the employer liable in any lawsuits.

Harassment

 

[HereIStand]

There is a difference between protected free speech that can be made on one's own time and what one can say (or should say) in the workplace. People shouldn't be subjected to explicit talk in the workplace, where they have to be. Unlike a bar or other places where they don't have to be.

 

[Thedictator]

With all the threads talking about attacks on freedom of speech these days, I wanted to discuss one of the biggest violators of the first amendment. It's one thing if an employer fires their employee for saying something they don't like, it's another thing entirely if the government forces them to do so.

First of all, I'm not talking about an employer threatening someone's job if the employee refuses to perform some sexual act. But that could easily fall under solicitation laws since the employer is essentially paying for that sexual act if it occurs.

What I'm talking about is the fact that I can't tell a dirty joke at work without my employer having to worry about getting sued.

If I'm chatting with a friend in the break room, I should be able to describe in vivid detail the most bizarre, depraved, graphic and obscene sexual acts I can imagine without any fear of reprisal. Just because someone is offended by my words doesn't mean we should have a law against it.

Now, who thinks my speech should be limited just because someone is going to be offended or because someone will feel uncomfortable?

Using Profanity in some cases can be a crime, Example: In Texas saying profane words at a child would be a misdemeanor. Now as for a business they have every right to limit your speech while in their employment. As a former Head Coach I never allowed profanity around my athletes from my Assistance.

 

[Thedictator]

I don't necessarily have a problem with employers choosing to fire people if they don't like what they say. There are a lot of threads that call out "attacks on freedom of speech" when companies do just that. But what this thread is about is the government forcing an employer to do that. It's about law, not company policy.

Could you give an example on how the Government is forcing an employer to do this?

 

[seeking.IAM]

I run a company. I fire people. The government has never told me to fire anyone. You're free to tell any dirty joke you want, and I'm free not to employ you if you do it in my business. When you step into my business on my payroll, you represent my company; you are the face of my company to internal and external customers. I have a right to define my company's image. Invite your buddy out for a cup of coffee after work and tell all the risqué jokes you want...if the coffee shop will let you.

 

[com7fy8]

freedom of speech

This freedom was meant so people can express their religious and political ideas, without being stopped by the government or others. It does not mean it is ok to disrespect other people and not care about their feelings, and it does not make it ok to deliberately talk in language which others have been morally trained not to use; such dirty talk can indeed be very disrespectful to religious people, and even to a number of secular people who have been brought up to use respectful language.

Also, we have ratings for movies so people have their own choice about if they see and hear x stuff. So, if you violate people's trust by forcing them to hear such stuff, without their having any choice about this, you are violating their right to have a choice about what they hear.

It is good to appreciate how people are trusting you to be considerate of them, and therefore you do not impose on them what they have a right not to hear. Love does not have us betraying other people's trust.

If I'm chatting with a friend in the break room, I should be able to describe in vivid detail the most bizarre, depraved, graphic and obscene sexual acts I can imagine without any fear of reprisal.

Like I have offered, I do not think you should be freely able to betray other people's trust.

But in case you and your buddy are the only ones present, I would say you are free to say what you like, if your buddy is interested. And be honorable to care about others, also, making sure who is present and how each one feels.

But, of course, there are ringleader people who can put on an act of asking if everyone is ok with something, but they expect ones who object to act like they are ok with what they do not like. So, if you want to be genuinely caring and loving, make sure anyone has really expressed what he or she feels, that he or she has been welcomed truly by you to have their freedom of speech about it

A freedom was meant for all of us together, not for you to have what you dictate on other people, without their also having freedom . . . the right freedom. For every right and freedom there is the originally intended purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation. And that does not mean selfish application!!

Now, who thinks my speech should be limited just because someone is going to be offended or because someone will feel uncomfortable?

I think you need to have the character to limit your own speech to what is wholesome and helpful, what can help people to find out how to love.

On the other hand, there are things which should not be offensive. So, if somebody is offended by what is good and wholesome, this is that person's own fault.

But if you are feeding and sowing what is not right, and only caring about your own so-called rights, you will reap according to what you have been sowing > Galatians 6:7-8. While we have the character to do what is unloving, our selfish nature will keep us weak so we can keep on having more and worse emotional trouble and relating problems.

It is important to become able to feel for others. But, also, we do need to evaluate what is really right or wrong, and not back down about things which are right, even though others object. Because there are wrong people who do oppose what is right.

If people are feeding on dirty and obscene and disgusting stuff, this can mean they do not fully appreciate intimate sharing which is tender and kind and caring for one another . . . not only using one another for pleasure. But there are people whose character has them mainly relating with and intimate with the pleasure they want, and then they can make a project of talking about this because they do not have God's love to deeply satisfy them and have them in intimate and sensitive sharing with people.

So, in case people are verbally abusive, by talking about intimate sharing as if it is dirty and as if it should be entertaining to hear about disgusting ways of it, this is anti-love. And, of course, no law can turn an unloving and inconsiderate person into a truly caring person. But laws can help to resist how any of us can be wrong and go the wrong way; laws can confront us so an issue has been made, so then we can reevaluate and seek how God is able to correct us to discover how to love

 

[Moral Orel]

Could you give an example on how the Government is forcing an employer to do this?

I run a company. I fire people. The government has never told me to fire anyone.

This reply should work for both of you.

Let's imagine I work for seekingIAM and he doesn't fire me for running around telling filthy jokes. Some employee hears me and is offended. That employee can sue seekingIAM for not firing me. He is financially liable for what the government has decided is bad speech. The fact that he agrees with the government that type of speech should not be allowed, doesn't mean that the government isn't telling him that he isn't allowed to allow that type of speech.

Sorry, seekingIAM, if I assumed the wrong pronoun.

 

[rambot]

If you have been asked to stop the behaviour by your boss and coworkers yet you continue, why should insubordination that makes others feel unsafe, be permitted? And if it is permitted, why should it be?
I dont think its what the government says is bad speech, more the people directly aeound you and society as a whole. They would just jave to prove to the govt/courts it contravened a safe work place

 

[Moral Orel]

This freedom was meant so people can express their religious and political ideas, without being stopped by the government or others. It does not mean it is ok to disrespect other people and not care about their feelings, and it does not make it ok to deliberately talk in language which others have been morally trained not to use; such dirty talk can indeed be very disrespectful to religious people, and even to a number of secular people who have been brought up to use respectful language.

Also, we have ratings for movies so people have their own choice about if they see and hear x stuff. So, if you violate people's trust by forcing them to hear such stuff, without their having any choice about this, you are violating their right to have a choice about what they hear.

It is good to appreciate how people are trusting you to be considerate of them, and therefore you do not impose on them what they have a right not to hear. Love does not have us betraying other people's trust.

There is nothing in the constitution that states what type of speech is free, and what type isn't, whether it be religious or political. There is also no right to choose what you hear. You can walk away from someone who says something you don't like in most instances, but there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to not have to hear things you don't want to hear.

Also, bear in mind this is about the law, not morality. It isn't about whether I'm a good person if I tell a dirty joke to someone who doesn't want to hear it. It's only about whether the government should tell me what I can and cannot say.

Like I have offered, I do not think you should be freely able to betray other people's trust.

But in case you and your buddy are the only ones present, I would say you are free to say what you like, if your buddy is interested. And be honorable to care about others, also, making sure who is present and how each one feels.

But, of course, there are ringleader people who can put on an act of asking if everyone is ok with something, but they expect ones who object to act like they are ok with what they do not like. So, if you want to be genuinely caring and loving, make sure anyone has really expressed what he or she feels, that he or she has been welcomed truly by you to have their freedom of speech about it

A freedom was meant for all of us together, not for you to have what you dictate on other people, without their also having freedom . . . the right freedom. For every right and freedom there is the originally intended purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation. And that does not mean selfish application!!

Again, it isn't about morality, it's just about the law. But I will say that I don't just ask people if they want to hear a dirty joke before I tell one. I know a lot of jokes, on a wide spectrum of offensiveness. I start out just a little risqué and work my way up to what they still find amusing. I don't just meet a guy and tell him the most offensive joke I know.

I think you need to have the character to limit your own speech to what is wholesome and helpful, what can help people to find out how to love.

On the other hand, there are things which should not be offensive. So, if somebody is offended by what is good and wholesome, this is that person's own fault.

But if you are feeding and sowing what is not right, and only caring about your own so-called rights, you will reap according to what you have been sowing > Galatians 6:7-8. While we have the character to do what is unloving, our selfish nature will keep us weak so we can keep on having more and worse emotional trouble and relating problems.

It is important to become able to feel for others. But, also, we do need to evaluate what is really right or wrong, and not back down about things which are right, even though others object. Because there are wrong people who do oppose what is right.

If people are feeding on dirty and obscene and disgusting stuff, this can mean they do not fully appreciate intimate sharing which is tender and kind and caring for one another . . . not only using one another for pleasure. But there are people whose character has them mainly relating with and intimate with the pleasure they want, and then they can make a project of talking about this because they do not have God's love to deeply satisfy them and have them in intimate and sensitive sharing with people.

So, in case people are verbally abusive, by talking about intimate sharing as if it is dirty and as if it should be entertaining to hear about disgusting ways of it, this is anti-love. And, of course, no law can turn an unloving and inconsiderate person into a truly caring person. But laws can help to resist how any of us can be wrong and go the wrong way; laws can confront us so an issue has been made, so then we can reevaluate and seek how God is able to correct us to discover how to love

I bolded the most pertinent part in this quote block. Different people find different things offensive, and different people find different things neutral, and different people find different things good. If we're going to protect some people from having to hear things they don't want to hear, then we should protect all people from having to hear anything they don't want to hear. Either everything is sacred, or nothing is sacred. As far as the law is concerned, I vote for nothing is sacred because we shouldn't be legislating to protect people from being offended.

If you vote for everything is sacred, I can respect that, even if I disagree. What I find ridiculous is when people say, "The things I believe are sacred and need to be protected, but the things other people believe are sacred are wrong and they don't need to be protected."

 

[Moral Orel]

If you have been asked to stop the behaviour by your boss and coworkers yet you continue, why should insubordination that makes others feel unsafe, be permitted? And if it is permitted, why should it be?

Again, it isn't about my employer firing me, it's about the government telling my employer that if he doesn't fire me then he is financially liable.

I dont think its what the government says is bad speech, more the people directly aeound you and society as a whole. They would just jave to prove to the govt/courts it contravened a safe work place

We have a lot of folks around here mocking the idea of "safe spaces" and coining terms like "snowflake" to talk about people that get offended.

And society as a whole doesn't dislike filthy humor, some people do and we're protecting some people by limiting speech. I'm just looking for all the anti-PC people to come out and show some support for my freedom of speech!

 

[Moral Orel]

Point of fact, the EEOC says nothing about punishment for harassment. That is left up to the employer. The government only states that everyone has a right to a harassment-free workplace and that failure to prevent and correct harassment makes the employer liable in any lawsuits.

Harassment

And... If I tell dirty jokes and don't stop, they have to fire me to correct the harassment. "Offensive humor" is listed as one of the things that is considered harassment.

Here's this bit:

To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.​

So what we have is the government deciding what is "offensive" and who is "reasonable". If we're going to take the first amendment seriously, does this seem right and okay?

 

[Moral Orel]

There is a difference between protected free speech that can be made on one's own time and what one can say (or should say) in the workplace. People shouldn't be subjected to explicit talk in the workplace, where they have to be. Unlike a bar or other places where they don't have to be.

So do you believe that anything that offends anyone should be illegal to talk about in the workplace?

 

[Moral Orel]

Wouldn't it all depend on how far the graphic display of your thought would go?

Well I am not American, but in Europe we have freedom of speech as well, but its still inappropriate to say certain things

IMO Being offended shouldn't limit your speech, However speaking in such a graphic manner (i.e. speaking about rape in a joyful manner) that it is triggering to people who have been through these experiences is a totally different matter and should not be allowed!

All sorts of things trigger all sorts of people. Should speech be limited to protect all of them? Or should the government be in charge of deciding who is protected and who is just being overly sensitive?

 

[Radagast]

If I'm chatting with a friend in the break room, I should be able to describe in vivid detail the most bizarre, depraved, graphic and obscene sexual acts I can imagine without any fear of reprisal.

That would be grounds for dismissal in most companies, and justifiably so. You have no right to make life unpleasant for your co-workers by saying such things.

Sensible versions of ant-harassment rules apply a "reasonable person" test to the offensive behaviour.

 

[Radagast]

To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

So what we have is the government deciding what is "offensive" and who is "reasonable".

Well, typically, if it goes to court, juries decide if a reasonable person would find the conduct offensive.

The "reasonable person" test rules out what some people have called "snowflakes." It's not just a question of whether I'm offended by your joke, it's whether a jury agrees that my taking offence is reasonable.