I'm going to split a particular hair: While I think you are, in principle, correct, circumstance is more complicated, which, of course, sounds like truism. In this case, I refer to a recent Reuters report↱, running under the title, "How the courts help companies keep sexual misconduct under cover" (see also, #3497398/402 ("Process, Ethics and Justice ..."↗). As long as the company's lawyers can reasonably expect the courts to continue burying the record, they will advise accordingly. ____________________ Notes: Levine, Dan, Benjamin Lesser and Renee Dudley. "Courthouse Confidential: How the courts help companies keep sexual misconduct under cover". Reuters. 26 January 2018. http://reut.rs/2DkALBN
You're lumping, not splitting - Franken's specifics (spidergoat's explicitly demarcated subject) with the undifferentiated mass of every sexual predator who has a job.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for some manner of distraction. Actually, I'm considering the asserted comparative. You do realize, do you not, people aren't going to dismiss the comparative just because you want to↑? By the way, if we follow the discussion back, Spidergoat's "explicitly demarcated subject") arises in response↑ to your post↑, and we can skip the question of whether I should then assign the explicit demarcation to you, because it spurs from a back and forth 'twixt you↑ and Birch↑, which in turn responds to part of my discussion with Randwolf↑. Meanwhile, the mere idea that your pet bawl should frame our discussion of nationwide marches pretty much makes its own point.
By lumping the explicitly and centrally disparate, as described - not splitting hairs, as you claimed. Nor are they going to "consider", in good faith, just because they say they do. I've noticed, yes. It's a pattern of behavior quite common among "people", and "everyone", and the like. See: You already tried that in post 151, a nasty little lie but thankfully brief. I did you, and the thread, the courtesy of ignoring it. Now you elaborate, with links and so forth? Dude - you are not ok. You weren't discussing nationwide marches. You weren't even discussing the OP topic, which was at least related to the women's march. You bagged all that for your agenda nine pages back, reframing to suit yourself as is your habit, long before my first post in the thread and several pages before this latest digression into Franken etc. Had you been discussing nationwide marches, the women's march, or even the actual OP for that matter, my responses (if any - been mostly sitting back on that score) would have been quite different. As would have been the thread.
Sexual battery, which covers what Franken did under US law (civil and criminal), is a crime. Are you suggesting that employers would be sued for firing an employee who committed a crime 8 times against 8 different women? Employers have a responsibility to act against groping. Gropers may be prosecuted for battery (although there is no guarantee), but they can’t be held individually liable for workplace discrimination. Only employers can. They thus have an incentive — dramatically heightened by the current feeling of collective outrage about the widespread ignoring of, and implicit condoning of sexual misconduct — to penalize the harassers. Working within the legal standard, employers have almost unfettered discretion to decide whether and what punishment might be appropriate. Tweeden's occurred while on a US base on a USO tour, which would probably see that fall under federal law, then the photo on an Army transport plane, also under federal law - by which I mean he was in the jurisdiction of the US. Sexual contact under that statute is defined as: the term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person While much has been made about shadows and whatnot with that photo, the intent was clear. If even one fingernail touched that vest, then he broke the law. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And looking at the fingers of his left hand, contact was more than likely made. One other incident occurred when Franken was employed as a radio presenter. The rest appear to have occurred when he was a US Senator. To suggest that employers would not fire an employee who groped 8 women and tried to kiss a few of them without consent and kissed one without consent, because they feared getting sued by the employee, is well, ridiculous. Failure to act would be more costly for the employer.
No, it's not. Any employer who fired an employee on no basis except the allegations against Franken would be liable in court. The intent is not at all clear, and the accuser obscured it in a manner that appears intentional on her part. Has anyone asked the photographer? At which point in your yo-yoing the entire morass of due process is dumped on the table. You can't invoke legal technicalities without getting stuck with them. Here, for example, you have a technicality visible (bolded) that would almost certainly exonerate Franken of any criminal charge (much as the lack of injury or threat in the descriptions so far protects him from civil liability): Of course that's not the issue. Nobody here - at least nobody like me, and I'm the one here - thinks Franken's legal liabilities are central to any of this. The law is not only an ass, but a very clumsy one. But since that is the case, why is it being invoked? No. Are you being dishonest by calculation, when you post like that, or just by reflex?
Good luck trying to convince a rational judge or jury that Franken’s intent in the photo was anything other than an exhibition of humor by a comedian.
Is your contention that they do not fire based on allegations alone, iceaura? Or that they would not? Employers do fire sexual harassers on allegations alone. Such as the 3 who were fired from Vice in December. Do you think those now former employees have grounds to sue? Obscured what? She was asleep. He decided to pose for that photo while she slept. That photo was then given to her, along with the rest of the photos from the tour, where she then found it. Are you now suggesting that the photo is fake? Because he admitted to taking it and he admitted to her not consenting since you know, she was asleep, ergo, she cannot consent.. You were the one arguing that no employer would fire an employee based on those allegations alone. I asked you if an employer would not fire an employee who broke the law in the course of their employ. And I pointed out how and why Franken broke the law as an example of just how groping women is actually illegal. Are you suggesting he grabbed their backsides, breast in one instance, and squeezed by accident? Are you suggesting that it was not intentional and therefore, would exonerate him? And how do you know there was no injury? The women reported feeling humiliated, demeaned, lessened and objectified by what he did. One felt frightened enough to warrant having her friend join her in the bathroom in case he followed her in there after he propositioned her. And tell me, what do you think the intent of men who grope women without their consent happens to be historically speaking, iceaura? Just for a bit of fun? Copping a bit of a feel!? Because that's how he hugs women who are complete strangers to him? Just having a bit of a squeeze of her boob or backside, no "intent" necessary, just because he can? And just for your fyi, in the case of Tweeden and the woman whose breast he groped in a photo op: (b)In Other Circumstances.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person’s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Funny that, huh? Franken is lucky, I suppose, that the statute of limitations will protect him in that regard. But those 8 women would have cases against him and he could have very well seen jail time for what he demonstratively did. Groping without consent is actually illegal in the US. So Franken actually broke the law multiple times when he groped those women. I mean, what else are you willing to condone at this point, iceaura? Because you argued: So the question you should, perhaps answer, is why do you think the courts would award a person who committed a crime, compensation against an organisation that terminated his employment for having committed said crime? To the one, the now former employee would think twice about bringing such a lawsuit forward, since the focus would turn to his or her behaviour that led the dismissal in the first place, which could then lead to lawsuits from his or her victims for groping their backsides, breast, trying to force kisses on their mouths and at least one proposition to join her in the toilet, presumably for sex. To the other, what court have you heard of, has awarded compensation to someone who was fired for having committed a crime or been accused of committing a crime in the course of their employ or even while employed with the company in question? I'll give you an example here in Australia. An airline worker (chief and supervising cabin crew) was accused by a few flight attendants of sexual harassment during a flight. The guy essentially made unwanted advances towards some of the cabin staff (asked them out on dates), made lewd jokes in their company and then made lewd jokes about the passengers to the cabin crew. The individuals who were the recipients of his harassment filed a complaint when the plane landed. He was fired based on those allegations. He sued. In court, around 9 to 10 people were presented as witnesses (corroborating witnesses and a few who witnessed his "jokes"). As with all companies, the airline in question had rules in place in regards to sexual harassment and misconduct. The airline was found to not unlawfully dismissed him. He lost. He then tried to claim that he was truly a victim because of the culture surrounding his employment made sexual harassment common, in short, he tried to argue that he hadn't broken the rules, because the culture of the workplace, with swearing and dirty jokes, was common place. He failed. Now keep in mind that he did not touch or grope. Had he done that, it is more than likely that he would have been arrested and charged as soon as the plane landed. You essentially argued that if an employee broke the law in sexually groping women, that he could then sue his employer for sacking him based on those allegations? Really? What plane of existence do you live in? You literally stated that "very few employers would fire somebody based on the accusations and behaviours made public about Franken, and if they did, they would be opening themselves up to be sued". Hence my questions. Are you now denying saying those words and arguing alone that particular line, iceaura?
You mean his intent in sexually objectifying and demeaning a woman, without her consent, as she slept was not clear enough, comedy or no comedy?
Of course they do. But we're talking about this specific case, these particular allegations. I'm believing the accounts. The accounts report no injury, no threats, no retributions, not even repeated attempts after rejection. Your interpretation of the allegations, Franken's behavior, the meaning of "course of employment", and the law involved, are not going to survive in a US court of law - civil or criminal. None of that establishes intent. The circumstances that would help establish intent are missing, and referred to in apparently calculated terms that implied (without directly claiming) meanspirited revenge or payback (a clever lawyer would use that to cast doubt on the entire allegation). Of course not. You posted the law - didn't you read it? Specific intent is necessary - some intentions are illegal, all the rest are not. There's a list of the illegal ones. This is a fundamental principle of American law - everything not specifically forbidden is legal. Your assertion that he is accused of grabbing someone's breast and squeezing is false, btw - you do that a lot, stretching the stories step by step. Is that on purpose? No, I pointed out that anyone sacked on the basis of the allegations we have about Franken would have excellent grounds for a lawsuit. There is no crime on the table in a court. There are only these allegations. That's right. And the attempt to obscure it, in the accusation, would also be a factor - casting doubt on the other details of the accusation, in court. I don't suppose you understand why you couldn't find an example that resembled the Franken situation. Nope. Just asking if your dishonesty in posting what I quoted is calculated or reflex. I think "reflex" - as I have been assuming - is the best guess.
And it has to be just so.. And? It was still sexual harassment. It was still groping women without their consent. If you grope someone without their consent, that's against the law. Full stop. Tell that to David Mueller. Doesn't need to be. The end result speaks for itself. It doesn't need to be mean spirited or payback. What part of that don't you understand yet? His intent was to touch her in a sexual manner, the end result is humiliation with not just the incident, but the photo itself. I'll put it this way, a law student in 3rd year could slam dunk this and win. Tell that to David Mueller. And Garrison Keillor (who was sacked for doing less than Al Franken).. Allegations of crimes. If he was an employee, they would be well within their rights to dismiss him. Because of the nature of the offense and the allegations. Think I'm kidding? As I noted, ask David Mueller. He was fired for groping the backside of one woman during a meet and greet. Now imagine 8 women coming forward. Keep in mind that Mueller lost his case. Obscure what? But I did. I don't suppose you are going to stop arguing as though groping women isn't really a big deal, are you? That's right, I forget. You consider it dishonest if we take your arguments seriously and quote your words back to you.
Try. It's not that difficult to argue honestly. We don't really know what Keillor was sacked for, and we don't know whether he will sue (he's been taking the high road, for whatever reasons, but the lawyers are ready). And I'm not even going to bother netsearching "David Mueller". You're dealing in presumptions, and the real world is not going to come around. You are wrong. The end result does not speak for itself - that's why the rhetoric in the original accusation was so careful - and the intent is central to any assessment of crime. That's an innuendo in the letter - but not a direct claim, or supported by evidence, which is what would have to be taken to court. That's not what the employer's lawyers would tell the employer. They have to actually go to court, if they get sued. In court, innuendo and presumption is a weak case. Like I said, you quoted the law - you should read it. Carefully. You invoke the law, you invoke all of it. Maybe. That's dishonest. The context and implied intention, to repeat for the fifth time. You didn't. I don't think you can. And you would need more than one, by this time, for an employer to feel at all safe. Meanwhile: you are the one lumping everything into the one deal, apparently without noticing that this affects the bigliness of it. Again: the name acquires the attributes of the thing, not the other way around. First Law Of {messaging} Advertising. The allegations against Franken are public - everyone can read them. The way they were handled is public. And if the attributes of that get attached to the name "Democrat", the women's march and the like will face some heavy lifting before November.
As I wrote over two months ago↗: Thus, to use "showbiz": Look, I recognize that behavior, and am willing to use the word "sophomoric", but that is as much as either Mr. Franken or myself can push. There is a question of what passes muster in showbiz, and that absolutely needs to be settled. Furthermore, what we might, in a prior time, have written off as sophomoric bullshit boys club behavior according to the irreverence of comedic showbiz, is not ours or his to define in the moment. It kind of cuts both ways: To the one, if Mr. Franken is a comedian, what is the then that licenses such behavior? And therein we find the hook: Once upon a time, there existed an expectation that this was somehow okay because, you know, fill in the blank about creativity and the fact of an entertainment industry. I don't actually disagree with "humor by a comedian" anymore than I would disagree with "persuasive business tactics" in taking the international businessmen out to the strip club. Yes, this is how things have been for a long time, and that is in and of itself problematic. And now the bell tolls on this one, as it periodically does. If you might say the "rational judge or jury" will excuse such behavior, then I would challenge the rationale. I can think of a jury that decided a rape victim was asking for it because she was wearing a bikini ... in Florida. I can think of a judge who placed a girl in the care of her father because he feared the lesbian mother might abuse her, and let me specify, that he was so worried that the respectable lesbian might abuse a daughter that he placed the girl in the care of a convicted murderer and accused child abuser. Perhaps one or both of these outcomes falls outside your personal definition of what counts as a rational result. In order to find behavior like Franken's acceptable, what is the rational argument delineating what boundaries? If comedian, then what? To blithely say, "Good luck trying to convince a rational judge or jury that Franken's intent in the photo was anything other than an exhibition of humor by a comedian", relies, functionally, on presupposing a rational justification for sexual violation having to do with the acceptability of such behavior according to an unreliable arrangement of particular, specialized, unenumerated customs. Thus, yes, I wonder how that mysterious rational justification works. And like I said, it cuts both ways: In November, I reflected on why I actually am not a fan of meshing the Moore and Franken cases together, but also suggested to "watch what Al Franken is doing; he is stuck with a process, is not resigning during a period when the news can only get worse, and he has precisely one way through this with no guarantee of where and how he lands". In assessing a number of allegations against an accused man, that we might defend him by license of custom in a particular case only requires that we consider the assertion of customary license in the general framework; that will not speak well of the accused; that is to say, the defense you postulate regarding the photo only reinforces the broader complaint about Mr. Franken's behavior. But in considering "showbitz" and "sophomoric" humor, there was also this: I would ask Sen. Franken's supporters, for instance, to bear one particular point in mind as this goes forward: He actually knows what he's doing at this point. He got himself into this, and now he needs to get himself through this, and one of the things he knows is that he does not get to choose where he lands, this time .... .... This is the time in which Al Franken needs to keep his head bowed, simply hit his marks, and do his job, and "what he gets in return" is as mysterious a notion as it would be foul demand. This time later, and after all the contention in between, I can comfortably stand on those points. Which brings another issue to its moment: Some of Mr. Franken's most vociferous defenders simply don't trust him. He knows what he's done; he knows what he hasn't; he knows the score. He can parse in his own conscience all he wants, but he is smart enough to know where he stands. I actually think he might have a path forward that has much to do with what passes muster in showbiz. And he knows it's there; but it's a question of perfection or self-destruction, so I would not know how to flip coins or throw bones on questions of wisdom or obligation. It suits him and everyone else best that he stays miles—astronomical units—away from the subject unless he can hit every last mark perfectly; to the other, some might argue a context by which he owes it, and I would have to see the construction on that before choosing to quibble or not. The thing is that Al Franken is very smart in a number of ways. What people generally mean when they say they don't know what they were thinking is that it made sense at the time in its own way they can no longer explain without feeling like a complete idiot because at some point it's a matter of how to avoid literally saying, "I'm in the performing arts, and we do this kind of shit to each other, by which I mean to women, all the time." Just like he's smart enough to not say, "What, it's fucking showbiz! She's fucking lucky that's as bad as it got!" (In television comedy, that would be the moment when some hitherto ignored female character clears her throat and says, "Yeah, y'know, about that ...." The difference 'twixt that moment in comedy and drama is that according to the one, we're supposed to think it's funny. Meanwhile, one really ought not need be extraordinarily intelligent in order to be smart enough to not say certain things.) Al Franken was in show business. He was in television comedy. When it comes to the bad news of treating women poorly, yeah, when it rains it pours, and while the fact of the rain explains why he is all wet, that speaks nothing about his decision to play the shark. There came a point at which he recognized it was his turn, and the news was only going to get worse. And this time later, his loudest defenders simply don't trust him. He knows what he's doing. His biggest danger, right now, is letting egotism speak. First rule is don't make things worse. And if at some point, knowing what he knows about what he has done and not, Al Franken decides the best thing to do is stay away, yes, actually, I will trust his assessment. He has exposure in an industry sector that quite literally bleeds the stuff. When the first accusation hit, he knew there would be more, and could only hope he knew how many; generally speaking, no, we don't know how many; we only count the ones we remember.
Or to non-blithely put it: Franken's adoption (and improvement) of the long-established USO schtick of self-mockery and self-humiliation as an unattractive lecher getting his comeuppance on stage - the stock comedy role he played once again on that very tour, with that very actress, along with other villain roles - included many scenes matching that photo. And - according to his fellow caste members so far, over a long career - no (other?) instances of predatory assault or retribution or humiliation of anyone but himself. There's no sign yet of an "open secret" around Franken. So whatever the rational justification for sexual violation involved, this is not it, or anything like it. It's a jump off the wrong foot. Which brings us to the other wrong foot: That is, the assignment of the label "defenders of Franken" to everyone who thinks the DNC and the self-identified moral high-grounders have set themselves up to screw a pooch here. Because if the first rule is "don't make things worse", that's a violation. And no matter how lucky so far, the answer to the question of whether they are smart enough to extricate themselves - if their luck changes, say - is increasingly looking negative.
It was more a point about your, well, demands that things have to be just so, not a hair out of place. It's not about comparisons, but it has to be exact down to the letter. Keillor was fired for placing his hand on the back of a woman, his hand was under her shirt, and he touched her bare lower back. David Mueller groped the backside of a woman during a photo op. His wife was standing on the other side of said woman, who happens to be quite famous. She reported it to his employer, he was fired. He tried to sue her for getting him fired. She countersued on the grounds that he grabbed her backside and squeezed it without her consent. He also tried to sue his employer for firing him. He lost. Spectacularly. So not only did an allegation like Franken survive in the courts, but also survived to the bitter end, with the abuser not winning on every count. And consider that Mueller groped just one woman. Franken groped and improperly touched and sexually harassed 8 women. Well yes it does. We not only have a photo of the end result, but we also have a victim describing how it made her feel, how she was afraid that if she reported him for what he did, that it would damage her career. We see the same with some of his other victims, such as the young aide, who felt she had no real recourse, for example. That was the end result for his victims. What do you think his intent was when he tried to sexually harass that young congressional aide and told her that it was 'his right as an entertainer'? Or when he propositioned a woman at a woman's event, after sexually harassing her, as to whether he could join her in the bathroom to finish what he believes they started, while she was looking for a retreat from his harassment? You can't see the intent there? Or Tweeden's picture? I mean, are we truly at the point where you are looking at a guy clearly humiliating a sleeping woman by grabbing her boobs for a photo and you are going to argue that you can't see or figure out the intent or you are going to argue that the intent is just not there? What else are you willing to excuse for your politician and party, iceaura? One doesn't have to read the letter to see what his intent is, iceaura. As I said, tell it to David Mueller, his arse grab was not even seen in the photo. He lost. You think Franken's photo would be different, given she was asleep, he admitted she had not consented because she could not consent (which makes it even worse)? If you did that to a female co-worker, and then sent her the photo, what do you think would happen? Say it's new woman on the job, she's just joined your team. She falls asleep in the lunchroom during her break and you take a photo with your hands hovering over her breast or groping her breast and then send it to her. You don't think it would be sexual harassment or illegal because your 'intent' in groping her breast is just not there? No, I am literally asking you what she has obscured with that photo. What context has she obscured? She was asleep, even he admitted that she was asleep. Is he lying as well? Is he obscuring the context as well? The implied intention is pretty clear, she was asleep, he chose to use her as a prop by groping her boobs while she slept, and then she was sent the photo, from a man she had advised had sexually harassed her and then made her time on that tour painful because she rebuffed him. Even without that letter, the intention of taking a photo of a sleeping woman while on the job and groping her boobs in that photo, you can't see intent to sexually harass there? Really? You think she's hiding the intent? So I will ask you to be clear, what context and intention has she obscured from a photo she did not take, she did not consent to having taken and in which she was asleep? Oh I can and I did. Iceaura, you are the only one here, in a Woman's March thread, arguing for a serial sexual harasser and groper. You are literally trying to excuse sexual harassment and groping of women without their consent, for the sake of politics, in a thread about the Women's March (and all that entails)... And you want to talk about the first law of advertising? I'd laugh. But I'm too tired to.
Say you see your co-worker having a nap at lunch time, you'd see nothing wrong with walking up to her and groping her boobs for a photo op while she slept, and then sending the photo to her, just because...?
So the fact that Franken’s hand may have contacted Tweeden’s flack jacket constitutes an intent to sexually grope? Would you argue that the prankster in the YouTube video was guilty of rape because he used a foreign object to penetrate the mouth of the sleeper without her consent? If I were on a chartered airliner with a sleeping co-worker, I might be tempted to execute a prank involving a mock sexual act if I thought said co-worker would reasonably perceive the intent.
I'm not doing that. I make no such petty demands. You aren't coming close, is your problem. That's a consequence of your insistence on refusing to recognize degrees and spectrum and so forth, and your insistence on lumping and slipshod vocabulary, slander and misrepresentation - you confuse yourself, not the rest of the world. That's what he claimed. If that's all that happened, what he described, then he can sue whenever he wants to with good odds (I doubt that's the whole story, just guessing, but maybe you're right to believe him completely - in which case the fact that he would be unlikely to damage his life's work by suing it may have figured into the board's decision. Or maybe they were just screwing up in a panic, or there was some kind of personal infighting involving Keillor. Those kinds of boards are stereotypically famous for stuff like that). That famous incident with Taylor Swift differed significantly from any of Franken's. (The grounds on which the guy was fired would not apply, the lawsuit was not against the corporation, the groping involved was significantly different, the timeline and provenance of the allegation was much different, and so forth). You continue to insist that your descriptions create realities - they don't. Compare the court testimony of Swift - that's a good idea anyway, because it is well worth reading. I ran into it in Harper's Magazine, a partial transcript that almost saved her music for me. You can't change the reality of that picture by assigning your presumptions to it. Other people only see what's in the picture, other people allow for the other (and more likely) possibilities of what's going on. You keep doing that - sliding the facts, posting what Mark Twain called "stretchers". Apparently, the actual allegations against Franken look insufficient even to you. Thing is, that does not create a new reality for the rest of the world. The name acquires the attributes of the thing. With the rhetoric of the letter. As answered already. For the what - sixth, seventh time. Right in front of you, in plain English. And you know that - you know I was talking about the letter: Oh, sure. He's "clearly" making fun of himself as the hopeless letch on the tour, clownishly groping flak jackets, humiliating himself for a laugh, mugging for the camera even. Right? So as I noted the end result is not in the photo, and does not speak for itself, and matches my descriptions above. Read your post. Furthermore, Franken's intent is not visible or spoken for either one - and without it, you don't have a crime in any of the Franken allegations. So no crime is on the table, and no civil liability manifest. That is now an established fact of the thread-wrecking discussion, which you have acknowledged - yes or no?
Maybe it's just me, but I think defiling someone's face with a permanent marker (while they sleep) should be a punishable offence of some sort. Come on, people, really?
