really not sure what you're implying

The issue with that is the women's team didn't even know about the "report" until about 10 days ago so it most definitely isn't "harrasing " speech. If the "report " was published each year and handed to the womens team then i could understand it being harrasing. But dont the supposed "victims " need to know they are being victimized? Or nah?

I've been following this story the last few days and doing a lot of research into the freedom of speech aspect of this case. So far I've found Fire.org's analysis to be the one I most agree with. Essentially they propose that while Harvard is a private institution and does not NEED to protect freedom of speech, as it is within their rights to restrict the rights of those attending. They offer/imply that while attending Harvard you have the right to freely express yourself. Thus they are contractually obligated to protect freedom of speech.

That being said. If they are contractually obligated to protect the freedom of speech of their students than they cannot punish the team for what was said as a private conversation amongst the team. Because this "report" was never distributed to the womens team it is not harrasing speech. So it is also not unprotected speech.

I am perfectly ok with anyone expressing their sexual desire or thoughts in an manner that is allowed by the constitution. This isnt 1984 and we don't have thought police.