An MSNBC spokesman confirmed Saturday the company made a separation-related payment to one of Chris Matthews' employees after the woman complained about sexual harassment by Matthews, reports The Daily Caller.
Two sources familiar with the situation told The Daily Caller that Matthews paid $40,000 to settle with an assistant producer on his show, “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” in 1999 after she accused him of harassment.
The nature of the sexual "harassment"? Get this.
The woman complained to CNBC executives about Matthews making inappropriate comments and jokes about her while in the company of others.
Inappropriate comments and jokes are considered sexual harassment where damages are required to be paid?
Matthews has always struck me as a wannabe. Always attempting to be one of the guys and never quite sure he is being accepted, so "one of the guys" jokes from him does not surprise me.
It is certainly boorish behavior but why did the woman that was the target of the jokes get a cash settlement?
There is no problem with her complaining to MSNBC management to attempt to get the environment changed or she could simply leave her job if she didn't like the environment but it is marching down the road to speech control to think she is owed damages because of jokes and comments.
The fact of the matter is that it is a very slippery slope when we start considering verbal comments a violation that requires damages.
In fact, I have put the barrier to sexual harassment and compensation much higher. In my essay, Sexual Harassment, Libertarianism and the Civilized Man, I wrote:
[P]rancing around naked in front of women, masturbating in front of them, asking for sexual pleasure from them, may make a man a high-powered sexual primitive, butFrom what we know at this point, Matthews is probably a junior-level sexual primitive but I don't see how he violated the NAP.
it should not be considered a violation of the non-aggression principle, where punishment is required.
As long as a woman is not being held against her will, physically forced to perform a sexual act, or agressed upon in any physical way, there is no violation of the non-aggression principle....
That said, there is no reason to support or be around high-powered sexual primitives, whether they violated the NAP or not, any more than there is any reason to support the antics of white trash or urban primitives.
I see some conservatives gleeful on Twitter about this Matthews revelation, but libertarians and conservatives need to be careful here. It is one thing for a Lefty to be exposed as a sexual primitive, junior or otherwise, which exposes his hypocrisy in adopting a posture of concern for women's intersectionality "oppression," but we must be careful that this is not used by the always power seeking Left to demand control over certain types of speech and to promote the idea that all men are sexual primitives. Just remember, it is the interventionists who desire to use clubs against those who do not adopt their views and yield to their desired power, that is real primitivism and real harassment.