During height of Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, some lawyer pundits made some rather remarkable observations: Saying certain things about scandal, they advised people, might be legally punishable. Be careful what you say, one headline warned, when you discuss the Starr report and Clinton/Lewinsky matter in certain ways. Such discussions ought to be avoided because of risk of legal liability. [I]t's best to choose carefully who you share your remarks, your jokes, with....'Attorneys warn us about [legal liability],' she said. Office humor in particular 'is always quicksand'.... There's no right [to make certain statements about Clinton/Lewinsky affair] just because it's a public issue. We had quite a few clients calling us when Lewinsky jokes...were making rounds. People think that if they hear something on TV or radio they can say it at work [without fear of legal liability]. But that of course is not case. What body of law, one might ask, would suppress jokes about President, or discussion of Starr Report? Not most publicized free restriction of Clinton years, Communications Decency Act, which had been struck down 9-0 by Supreme Court. Rather, this remarkable restriction is hostile harassment law. Under this doctrine, can lead to massive liability so long as it is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment for plaintiff and for a reasonable person based on person's race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, and so on. And these rather vague and broad terms have long been interpreted to cover not just face-to-face slurs or repeated indecent propositions, but also sexually themed jokes and discussions, even ones that aren't about coworkers or directed to particular coworkers. The prudent employer is wise to restrict like this, whether it's about Clinton, Lewinsky, Starr, or anyone else--not just because of professionalism concerns (which some employers might care more about and others less), but because of risk that this will be found to have been illegal. This article explores, through lens of four specific Clinton-era cyberspace harassing speech controversies, how hostile harassment law has rapidly become one of broadest modern restrictions on generally, and on cyberspace in particular.