For instance, a professor could make sexual comments about a student. That, too, by your definition, would be "free speech", and thus allowable. In other words, you're completely off-base here and need to re-assess your argument.
> Abusive
Is this the right word?
It is specifically meant to protect the cases which someone may identify as "abusive"
When the union got involved and the adjudicator laughed in his face over his religious claims I think that was the final nail in this case. Put that in front of a jury and he wins hands down.
I think he was belated the student continued to complain after the compromise was made because he knew he'd win this in the end.
The fact that some are not offended says loads about this. If the speech was intrinsically offensive, wouldn't everybody (most people) agree?
We don't need a constitutional protection of our right to compliment each others outfits. No body tries to limit any one elses speech when they agree with it. The reason we put that in our constitution was to ensure free speech in times when it does offend people.
Good thing the courts get this and made the right ruling.
What if a person disagrees that requesting pronouns from a gender other than their birth sex is not basic respect? You’re worldview leaves us powerless to address these tough questions.
Employers fire employees who speak offensively even outside of work. Free speech doesn't mean speech without consequences.
The people who want to kill free speech in order to avoid some minor discomfort see these arguments as some kind of trump card. "Do you really want free speech even when it's you that someone is saying something mean to?"
Yes I do.
I'm a Jew and I support the right to hold Klan rallies and Nazi marches. I support throwing them in prison if they threaten assault or assault anybody but I support their right to say anything they want up to that point.
I support free speech. Specifically in the cases when it's someone else saying something I don't like because that is literally what free speech means.
"100%, unequivocally,y No exceptions?" You literally just cited an exception -- a threat (a type of speech). So we all draw a line somewhere, including you.
Though we all here know you're kidding yourself and if somebody you love was distraught over being verbally abused by a professor for no apparent reason you'd want the situation changed.
I wouldn't argue that free speech has no exceptions. It clearly does. I went out of my way to point out the exceptions in my own post. I'm 100% for extreme free speech except in cases of direct threats of physical violence.
I'd quit and find a new job.