Hoping For a Smile? Keep it Clean

Freedom of speech protects the right to be offensive, but it doesn’t require women to smile and nod at tasteless jokes, especially in professional settings.

After a good, long run, #boobs is no longer trending on Twitter.

It was sports commentator Clay Travis, a guest on CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin’s segment, who got this classy hashtag trending on Friday afternoon when he used his airtime to express his ardent love for two things: the First Amendment and … boobs.

I’m a First Amendment absolutist — I believe in only two things completely: the first amendment, and boobs . . .

After throwing out this innocent little bombshell, Travis attempted to continue his point but Baldwin cut in:

I just wanted to make sure I heard you correctly as a woman anchoring this show … you said you believe in the First Amendment and … [spelling] b-double-o-b-s?

Travis confirmed that Baldwin had heard him correctly:

Boobs. Two things that have . . . never let me down in this entire country’s history, the First Amendment and boobs, so those are the only two things I believe in absolutely in the country.

Again, Travis attempted to continue his point, but both Baldwin and guest Keith Reed came back to his “First Amendment and boobs” comment and expressed their disgust that he would go there on CNN, particularly when addressing a female host.

When Travis continued to repeat the line, Baldwin eventually ended the interview by cutting off his mic.

On Twitter, many conservatives came to Travis’ defense:

Several conservative women were quick to affirm that they supported Travis and didn’t find his comments offensive:

The Federalist characterized Baldwin as “freaking out” in their news headline.

All weekend I waited for someone to offer a response to #BoobGate that was not a) an exaggerated pearl-clutching equating Travis’ remarks as an par with rape or b) an excoriation of Baldwin for being offended by his “joke.”

In vain did I wait.

Frankly, I’m in no hurry to waste my sympathy on Clay Travis or my outrage on Brooke Baldwin on this one.

I think if we’re being honest we can admit that there was absolutely no reason for Travis to bring up his love of boobs except to provoke Baldwin. While I don’t doubt that there are many women who would not be offended by his remarks, let’s not play the game of pretending like Travis meant anything other than offense. The entire point of his little life motto rests upon its being offensive: “I love free speech so I’m going to say this offensive thing to prove that I say what I want no matter what people think.”

What Travis pulled here is a cheap trick wherein he couched a remark that was clearly intended to offend within a free speech framework, so that, even though the offense was intentional, if Baldwin responded by taking offense, it would make it look like she was anti- free speech. While this may seem like a great opportunity to indulge in that favorite conservative pastime of raking mainstream news personalities over the coals, the problem is that by extension, it takes every woman (myself included) who would take offense at Travis’ boob appreciation speech right along with her.

One need not be a feminist to object to a man’s leering jokes about the female anatomy. I think most women would find this kind of remark, particularly in a professional setting, offensive. While I am perfectly aware and have no objection to the fact that men like boobs, I was raised (by parents who were as conservative as they come) on the idea that sex is a private matter, that nice men do not talk to women about parts of their anatomy that are generally understood to be private, and if they do, it is completely reasonable for women interpret it as being disrespectful, and object. I’m not holding my breath waiting for Clay Travis to apologize to women for his little joke, but he needn’t hold his breath waiting for me to laugh, either.

In reality, Travis’ remarks and Baldwin’s reaction to them have nothing to do with free speech, and trying to incorporate them into a discussion about First Amendment rights only confuses the issue. Travis and others like him seem to think that freedom of speech means that he can say whatever obnoxious thing he wants, and the rest of the world should smile and nod — but the First Amendment assures him no such privilege. This is what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .

The First Amendment is about restraining government. The last time I checked, Brooke Baldwin is not a member of Congress (although she is a member of the press that the First Amendment specifically protects) and she is passing no laws abridging Travis’ freedom of speech. As a CNN host she exercised her privilege to end an interview with a guest she no longer deemed to be adding anything to the discussion. We can argue about whether it was the right way to handle the situation or not, but the First Amendment won’t help us answer that question.

Travis has no right to be purposely offensive and then demand that no one take offense. He has no right to air time on CNN. He has no right to demand to be treated like a professional when he has ceased acting like one. He does have a right to freedom of speech, which he chose to use to deliberately needle a female host who had control over his microphone, with the predictable result.

The First Amendment protects Brooke Baldwin’s, mine, and any other woman’s (or man’s) right to express disgust and offense at Travis’ remarks just as much as it protects his right to make them. Don’t confuse freedom of speech with permission to be obnoxious without suffering the logical consequences. The two are worlds apart.