Saturday, August 27, 2016

Sexual Harassment Charges as an Attack on Freedom

By Robert Wenzel

The infiltration of Social Justice Warrior concepts into common everyday thought has become so intense that it forces the freedom lover to build a bunker and take a stand on the intellectual battlefield at points that would seem odd areas to defend in periods in the past.

I have in mind, as an example, the frequent slinging of sexual harassment charges by SJWs for almost any reason, at any one.

A case in point is the recent sexual harassment charges brought in a New Yok court by former Fox News host Andrea Tantaros.

The lawsuit implicates former chief executive Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly and Bill Shine, one of the men who replaced Ailes as co-president of Fox News.

Here are some of the charges as reported by Slate:

Among other transgressions Tantaros details in her complaint, Ailes allegedly:
  • Told Tantaros to “come over here so I can give you a hug” asked her to “turn around so I can get a good look at you” (twice), and said, “I bet you look good in a bikini.”
  • Asked Tantaros whether Greg Gutfeld and Dana Perino are each gay, then (puzzlingly) asked whether they were “sleeping together.”
  • Called various female Fox contributors “easy,” “nuts,” “fat,” and “a stalker.”
  • Said Dana Perino “is uptight. You get the feeling that she never lets her hair down, but if she did, she’d be a good time.”
  • Said Kimberly Guilfoyle is a “Puerto Rican whore” and a “Puerto Rican streetfighter.”
  • Asserted that Harris Faulkner “has the tendency to look like the angry black woman.”
Well, blown me down,

 So Ailes is crude and uses colorful language. This is now speech that can be claimed is injurious and brought before a court for damages?

That there is no loud and unending outcry, against such charges brought  by Tantaros, is instructive in how docile the masses have become in the face of SJW propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that any decent person should be horrified at the implications against speech that these charges carry.

Fox News is a private organization, Why shouldn't it be allowed to tolerate any type of speech it chooses on its properties?

A fundamental bedrock stone in a private property society is that we are free to exchange with those we choose to, and we can refuse to interact with anyone--for whatever reason.

If Tantaros finds the comments of superiors at Fox disgusting, moving on should be her out from the situation,

Bringing charges for such comments is nothing more than just speech control. It is an operational technique that has been used by some the worst people to ever roam the planet, including Stalin and Mao.

Decent people should always have a knee-jerk reaction against such speech control.

It doesn't mean all speech must be tolerated by a property owner on his own land, but it does mean that a property owner can allow any speech he chooses on his land. He gets to choose.

But no one who attempts to bring the force of the government to prevent some types of speech on private land (or seek damages because certain speech took place) should be supported. Speech is the highway for intellectual debate, it also provides a clue to understanding the views and personalities of those around us. It is an important information sourcer that shows us who we are dealing with.

If  speech reveals a personality that we don't want to deal with, then we should stop dealing with such a person.

There are many people that I don't deal with because I just don't want to listen to them, for a variety of reasons.There are youtube videos that I stop listening to after a few minutes if I find them uninteresting.

But I have never taken to court anyone because I do not want to hear what the say or because they have created a youtube that does not interest me. I just stop putting myself in situations where I have to listen to them.

Freedom is operationally beautiful. I just stop dealing with those I don't want to deal with. There are no courts involved. I don't have to act like a little Stalin or Mao and patrol the speech of others.

We should protest against speech control whenever someone attempts it, be it a Mao, a Stalin or Tantaros.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn.


  1. Ailes first mistake was hiring nothing but attractive women to work for him. From my experience, attractive women cannot be trusted. I'm assuming Tantoros made politically incorrect comments as well to make Ailes feel comfortable around her but then felt slighted somehow because he didn't do her any favors, so now he must be punished for double-crossing the Goddess. There's been a few attractive women I worked with and associated with outside of work and it later came back to bite me in the ass. They do not live by the same code as men: Anything you say to them becomes pubic information if they feel the least bit slighted.

    1. "Pubic" information. A typo maybe, but it still kinda works.

    2. American SJWs cannot be trusted. There's a lot of beautiful women from all around the world which both look much better (because they are taught to look after themselves by their moms) and don't have a chip permanently glued to their shoulders (because they weren't brainwashed by the American public education and academia). Oh, any they are usually much smarter, too.

    3. I've had a similar experience as you with a female co-worker when I first started working. From that point I dont associate with female co-workers outside of work for that reason

  2. Radical feminism must be stopped at every turn. Unlike 1st and 2nd wave which was to achieve political equality, 3rd current wave just seeks to destroy men. Lying about sexual harassment and rape is one way to do it

  3. The idea of calling someone "a stalker" being sexual harassment seems particularly dangerous. We have a falsifiable statement. The woman may well be a stalker, and, if she is, it would be absurd to use a statement of fact as basis of sexual harassment.

  4. A fundamental error made by the SJWs: your thoughts and words control my emotions.

    The fact: my own thoughts and beliefs about your words control my emotions. I'm responsible for my feelings, no one else is.

  5. Tantoros was always the most macho neocon warmonger. Obama was a weenie because he (along with ALL of the Democrats) was too Kumbaya to do battle with radical Islam. And a few silly comments from the boss are going to cut deeply into her little girly soul.

    I think Tantoros should have worked road construction in central Indiana in 1971 to hear some interesting language.

    1. She only had a job there because she was an attractive neocon. I never watched The Five but every time I saw clips of her she was speaking in the typical uneducated Valley Girl dialogue. BTW, if your job is being on a show like The Five, you're not actually working for a living.

  6. The old Fox guys should have watched this Tom Brady public service ad:

  7. I’m getting tired of all these attacks I get for my AnCap views, so I’ve decided to become a Gary Johnson/Alicia Dearn style libertarian. Thus, it’s completely libertarian for Tantoros to sue Ailes and O’Reilly for their snide comments but Ailes and O’Reilly can countersue for age discrimination. Being turned down for a date by a hot young woman because you are old and wretched is hurtful. And it should all be decided by twelve jurors selected from “The People of Walmart”. It’s only fair.

  8. Tantaros viciously defends Israel's slaughter of civilians and children in 2014:

    Oblivious to the fact that even Israel agreed that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, Tantaros was still spreading the old neocon lies in 2015:

    While discussing the Iran nuclear deal on Outnumbered, Tantaros attacked Jewish Debbie Wasserman Schultz for supporting the deal. Tantaros didn’t just criticize Wasserman Schultz’s decision but decided to attack Wasserman Schultz’s faith:

    TANTAROS: For Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she wants to secure her position as DNC Chairman. The fact that somebody who is Jewish came out in favor of this deal is shameful and abominable. It's really disgusting, and they should all own it, and Republicans need to make them own these votes. All of these Senators, there’s a list out on Twitter, they should hang this vote around their neck like a millstone.