Hacker News Reader

Comment by wildmusings | Hacker News Reader

It's a mutually beneficial trade. The accuser gets paid, without having to go through the rigors of a trial, where the defense counsel will impeach their character and try to convince the world that they are scheming liars or worse. The accused gets silence, instead of having their name run through the press and assumed guilty by the angry mob.

Also, where did sexual assault come into this? Sexual assault is a crime. Sexual harassment isn't a crime at all; it's a civil wrong that exists only in the context of the workplace.

View on HN

It may be beneficial to each party but it sure as hell isn't what I want from my society.

A large portion of these events have come from men with money and power. Letting them pay their way out of this just means they get to go on perpetrating the same crime on other people. That's not an acceptable outcome for sexual harassment.

"Blood money" (a family forgiving a murderer in exchange for money) is a mutually beneficial trade, but is illegal in almost all countries.

Telling some one a sex joke is a not a crime, killing someone is a crime.

Edit: Sexual harassment, as such, is not a crime under state or federal law in the U.S. Murder is a Crime.

Makes no sense to compare it to murder. apples oranges.

This discussion is about more than just "telling some one a sex joke".

yea but you are comparing something thats considered crime by federal law to something that isn't.

Commiting a crime is illegal, sure. I don't understand what you were implying then.

This discussion is about allegations which range from rape down to "acting creepy." Some of these are crimes.

Even if we aren't initially talking about a crime, I would find it unjust if a billionaire quietly paid off 100 victims of sexual harassment, and then committed an assault. "Who could have predicted this?!?!"

Here's a thought, define these, be specific, don't be vague: Sexual harassment, creepy, weird, offensive, hostile, racist, rape, consensual, troll, etc.

All this nonsense is subjective. I mean to some people, being hostile and offensive is to have a differing opinion.

For how long is this nonsense to continue? People are too afraid and walking on egg shells to have a normal human conversation. Now that IS a hostile work environment!

For how long are we going to allow people to run around causing havoc and social disorder?

Just the other day some people talked about a person getting accused of sexual harassment because he wore a t-shirt with a big X on it. The bandwagon effect caused yet another person to claim the t-shirt were insinuating racism because of the t-shirts colors. For crying out loud! Think the victim got reprimanded, perhaps fired. Can't remember, I was quite drunk at the time. Do remember it didn't end well though.

This sort of bullshit is getting worse and more common. Companies don't want to deal with the drama so they just fires the victim of these accusations and publish a press release of which they pat themselves on the back for what they did.

You dislike someone? Accuse them of rape or sexual harassment, let the bandwagon effect do the rest. The drama queens, attentions whores, liars, trolls and such make the same accusation or similar and for some reason when several people claim the same or similar means the person is guilty. Argumentum ad populum.

This just pisses me off. What happened to "whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim." Where's the justice?

This is like the witch accusations a few decades ago. "Aww. She didn't float, she drowned, guess she wasn't a witch. Oh well, mistakes happen". "She swore revenge and cursed us while she burned to death. It can only mean one thing: she was a witch!".

> People are too afraid and walking on egg shells to have a normal human conversation.

I see lots of people aggressively asserting this, but little evidence of the actual behavior described.

People who are yelling to everyone they can find about an environment that forces them to walk on eggshells aren't actually in such an environment.

Creating a hostile work environment that constitutes discrimination on sex is absolutely, unquestionably, a federal crime, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (see Supreme Court cases Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, Ellison v. Brady, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, etc. etc. etc. - and Meritor and Oncale had no dissents, and Ellison only had one dissent from a justice who felt that the case should be heard before the Supreme Court to establish a stronger and clearer precedent).

I note that in your edit you have jumped from "killing someone is a crime" to "Murder is a Crime." Those are different things. Killing someone is, technically, not a crime. There are lots of cases in the US where you can kill someone legally (self-defense, fighting a war, administering the death penalty, being a cop who got scared, etc.). Murder is a specific crime because it's a specific set of circumstances around killing someone. Even manslaughter is a separate crime.

In the same way, no, "telling some one a sex joke" if you're a comedian at a bawdy bar, or in bed with someone you met on Tinder, or any such thing isn't a crime. Telling someone "a sex joke" in a way that creates a hostile working environment is a crime, as is allowing it to happen. And this article and this entire discussion is specifically about sexual harassment in working environments.

If you do not understand this or believe this, for your own sake, please seek actual legal counsel before telling any more sex jokes.

You are 100% wrong. Sexual harassment is EXCLUSIVELY a civil cause of action. It is NOT a crime, end of story. It's honestly baffling that you could have looked at any of those cases and not known you were looking at a civil case.

...Or read the text of the Act. Not sure why you were downvoted.

You should seek legal counsel as well, because it is clear that you are not an attorney (or, if you are, you should be disbarred for incompetence). The statue is clear; it plainly states the Government can only bring a civil action to enforce Title VII. Did you actually bother to read it?

As an actual attorney (this is not legal advice), I advise you to stick to what you know.

Thank you for the correction / rebuke. You're right.

> for your own sake, please seek actual legal counsel

Reply on news.ycombinator.com