Well, if you’re arguing that harassment should be protected speech, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That’s okay - at least we got down to the underlying disagreement, so I’m good with that.
That’s interesting. So … if a stranger imposes themselves, it wouldn’t be harassment because it was only once? What would you call it, then? (also, as this seems to be in response to my request for a difference between sexual harassment and ethnic harassment, are you implying that is a distinction between the two?)
Timex
1982
Well, if you’re arguing that harassment should be protected speech, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That’s okay - at least we got down to the underlying disagreement, so I’m good with that.
The problem with allowing it to be censored is that it’s difficult to legally define it in such a way that doesn’t allow abuse.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that private organizations can’t make their own rules and preclude such statements. But the government shouldn’t.
In very narrow cases, where the speech constitutes an actual threat, then it’s OK to regulate. But in cases where it simply makes someone feel uncomfortable, you are crossing a line that really shouldn’t be crossed. Most social progress once made the majority of society feel threatened and uncomfortable.
It’s an interesting philosophy. Not a “gotcha” question but rather seeking clarification: what about federal employees? Would they get to harass each other to no end because their employer is a public entity? I’m just looking at the extreme scenarios - a habit I have when contemplating such things - and NOT implying you’d somehow be happy with such a situation. I respect you and enjoy our conversations, and thus such a stark difference in viewpoint on something like this intrigues me.
magnet
1984
What do you mean by “stranger”? You can’t sue a complete stranger for sexual harassment, you sue an employer or similar and it has to be related to the workplace.
And what do you mean by “impose”? If there is any physical contact, then other laws that apply, ie sexual assault.
When coworkers are contributing to a hostile work environment, one must inform the coworkers (and/or supervisor) of the problem. If it persists after being told to knock it off, then a lawsuit can be filed.
In case of quid pro quo, one incident is enough.
TimJames
1985
I haven’t really followed this discussion, but this blurb from my favorite article in The Atlantic may help:
Since 2013, new pressure from the federal government has reinforced this trend. Federal antidiscrimination statutes regulate on-campus harassment and unequal treatment based on sex, race, religion, and national origin. Until recently, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights acknowledged that speech must be “objectively offensive” before it could be deemed actionable as sexual harassment—it would have to pass the “reasonable person” test. To be prohibited, the office wrote in 2003, allegedly harassing speech would have to go “beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.”
But in 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education greatly broadened the definition of sexual harassment to include verbal conduct that is simply “unwelcome.” Out of fear of federal investigations, universities are now applying that standard—defining unwelcome speech as harassment—not just to sex, but to race, religion, and veteran status as well. Everyone is supposed to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence.
I don’t know if there’s any case law so take it with a grain of salt.
I put that poorly. I have worked for companies where I didn’t know a great many people, including CEO’s and upper management (sad, but true). “Someone who I haven’t met before” would have been the better way to put it.
And what do you mean by “impose”? If there is any physical contact, then other laws that apply, ie sexual assault.
I’ll go with the classic:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
1.submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment,
2.submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
3.such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])
When coworkers are contributing to a hostile work environment, one must inform the coworkers (and/or supervisor) of the problem. If it persists after being told to knock it off, then a lawsuit can be filed.
In case of quid pro quo, one incident is enough.
Honest question, because I don’t know (the whole IANAL bit): so if my boss exposed themselves to me (on the premises, so private property) and requested various favors, made numerous comments that would fall into “hell no” territory, and did any number of other things in going way overboard … no lawsuit? (I’m sure my boss would be fired, just curious about this aspect).
magnet
1987
Requesting favors is essentially quid pro quo. You can act immediately.
Making numerous hostile comments is on the other end of the spectrum. First you have to ask them to stop.
As for exposing yourself, I don’t know where that falls.
Interesting. Some days, I wind up learning far more about the law here rather than video games. Not a bad thing, mind you.
So… the student at Mizzou who went on the hunger strike to protest white privilege is apparently the son of a multi millionaire. It certainly puts a different light on things.
True True, but i dont remember seeing anything about it here. I could have missed it though. Very possible.
Nesrie
1992
Wasn’t it Chris Rock who used to say there are a lot of men out there who would not want to be him basically because he’s black… but he’s also rich. I guess it’s all a matter of what kind of privilege you’re talking about.
I think the first time I saw this phenomenon was in prep school. Many people absolved their privilege by diving into good works. It was an admirable instinct, but some took it a little too far. They got wrapped up into their charity work to the point where they thought they were part of downtrodden America.
The lies we tell ourselves.
None the less, i think most of us can agree that having someone who is more privileged than 99% of his fellow students go on a hunger strike to protest a system of oppression and privilege is simply ridiculous.
Timex
1995
Well, you’re allowed to protest things even if they don’t hurt you specifically.
Yeah, what a concept. Only poor people protest I guess.
In all seriousness, I don’t see that at all.
I mean, someone who, say, decries illegal immigration and then goes home to his immaculate lawn being cared for by a bunch of undocumented workers is a hypocrite, and so their statements should probably carry less weight. Someone who has never been affected by a particular hardship railing against that situation from comfort is perhaps less compelling as a narrative than someone who has actually experienced it, but it doesn’t make their argument invalid or even make them a bad spokesman.
But this case… you have a kid who was raised in luxury, has never known involuntary hunger, and who could skate through life without giving minorities and the underprivileged a second thought. Instead, he is voluntarily subjecting himself to discomfort as a way of expressing solidarity and admitting that he is/was guilty of exactly what he’s protesting.
I see that as being worthy of praise, not derision. Even if you don’t subscribe to his views, he seems to be someone who is willing to put some skin in the game. Walking the walk, as it were.
I don’t see it like that. I got the impression he was specifically including himself in the oppressed.
I haven’t read anything at all about him specifically. If he’s pulling a Rachel Dolezal type of thing type of thing, then that’s a horse of another color.
Just curious - was the hunger strike over income inequality?
