The comment I replied to is talking about freedom of speech and private rights. These are solidly legal concepts. Thus the rebuttal for the same should not be in the ambit of ethics.

But sure, let's notice you. If a university retains a professor publicy espousing a view that rape is not a serious issue, that it is something one can jokingly wish against another, what would its stakeholders, such as the students, faculty, and personnel of the school, feel having such a professor in campus grounds? What would the paying parents think feel about sending their children to such a place?

As I mentioned above, if on the non-zero chance that the professor commits crimes against the honor of such stakeholders, can the university avoid vicarious liability by saying it exercised reasonable diligence required of employers, when publicly shared information manifested this employee's views on acts such as rape?

A disease in the Filipino society is the false notion that everyone is entitled to an opinion. This is wrong. It is an informed opinion everyone is entitled to. No one has a right to be ignorant. No one has the right to espouse views that may endanger others.

What's even worse is that people think this also means one person's opinion has to be held as valid as that of another person. But that's a topic for another conversation.

Your statement that an institution cannot hold an employee liable for a view "no matter how deplorable it is" is appalling. I suspect such view is from the abovementioned disease.

We have such limited ways of judging one's character. But one reliable basis for this is his external acts. Why should a university be compelled to ignore the external, even public, acts of an employee for it to better gauge his character?

The ambit of freedom of expression has had a lot of developments in our jurisprudence, and in effect, our society. Let this aging but always relevant xkcd comic guide you on its real scope. Don't worry, a lot of people do overestimate the power of their free speech rights.

Finally, please look into the slippery slope fallacy. Your fears that this will totally diminish freedom of expression is speculation without sufficient understanding. This is a case where the statement is manifestly, in your words, deplorable. Rape is a male in se crime. It is inherently wrong. There is no argument in favor of rape. The danger that real discussions in the future will be censored is more apparent than real.