Celebrity Sexual Harassment Charge Sheet

[Forty Two]

What would you change about the system? Limit civil suits to compensate for the injury suffered by those who have been sexually harassed?

People can buy their way out of civil trouble. Like, if you ram someone with your car by accident. You can get sued civilly and the remedy is for you to compensate that person for the injury they suffered. it's not a crime. So, whether you pay after a jury declares that you're at fault for the wrong, or whether you come to an agreement with the injured party, it's compensation for injury?

What would you add to or take away from that system?

[Woodbutcher]

Make the compensation to be a percentage of your earnings, just like traffic fines in Finland. That way everybody would hurt equally.

[Forty Two]

Well, that's one way to do it, and with particularly egregious situations, the law in some jurisdictions allows punitive damages, which are based in part on the ability of the defendant to pay.

However, since civil suits are generally about compensation, and not punishment, the question is not how much the defendant is able to pay, but how bad has the plaintiff been injured. A plaintiff who was subjected to dirty jokes in the workplace, and lost her job for not tolerating it, was injured by loss of wages/income and the mental/psychological suffering of being sexually harassed in the way she was in the workplace. That number doesn't change based on the means of the Defendant.

If the goal is to punish a Defendant, not to compensate the Plaintiff, then typically the matter would be criminal, and the Defendant should be afforded the presumption of innocence and not be found guilty except by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil suits for sexual harassment are based on a preponderance of the evidence, which just means that the plaintiff must prove that her claims are more likely true than not, which leaves plenty of room for lots of doubt as to whether they actually are true. To divest a person of their assets based on a finding that "...we think he probably did it, and she probably suffered injury as a result.." obviously is not a particularly encouraging system.

That being said, if the standard of proof were raised to clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, then maybe a punitive damage award, in my view, sounds more reasonable. However, conceptually, a plaintiff receiving a windfall, far above the actual injury they suffered, to "punish" the defendant who hasn't committed a crime, but rather a civil wrong, to me always seems a bit much. Perhaps any such punitive award should be paid to the State, or to a general fund to assist those who are recovering from sexual harassment.

[Forty Two]

Patriarchy ends Sundance Film Festival party scene in light of #metoo --
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... es-1075058

[laklak]

Make the compensation to be a percentage of your earnings, just like traffic fines in Finland. That way everybody would hurt equally.

I don't think income is a good measure, would be better to use assests + income. There are a lot of people around here with very small or zero income, but one shitload of assets. All it takes is a good accountant.

[Forty Two]

That's a good point. "Earnings."

Also, it would let poor people harass all they want, as they have no money to pay. lol.

[pErvinalia]

Also, it would let poor people harass all they want, as they have no money to pay. lol.

I'm up for a system like that!

[DRSB]

[Forty Two]

In a Feb. 2 post on Thomson's website Women's Post, she wrote that a political talk show host "asked me if I would sleep with him," after attending a lunch at Grano, a restaurant near Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue West.

Thomson wrote that she replied she would never do that and then excused herself to call her campaign manager.

The post goes on to say that the host has continued to approach her on several different occasions at political functions with the same proposition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... -1.4523469

Good on the CBC for not firing Paikin, but I'm not sure what the fuck the CBC is "investigating," here? Thomson is a politician, and not an employee of the CBC and not a coworker of or subordinate of Steve Paikin. Even assuming the truth of the allegations, that after a lunch at Grano, Steve Paikan aske her to sleep with him, so what? That's not sexual harassment. She said no. He didn't, apparently, do it anyway. Later, at "political functions" she says he made the same proposition on several different occasions. O.k.? So? A few propositions for sex is "sexual harassment?" Did he stalk her? They were at "political functions." That implies a public place. What law is broken here, even if he asked her several times to have sex?

She said , "I wonder if he does this so that if he is ever held to account he can claim that he was only joking?" http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/05 ... _23353197/

Held to account? For what?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/movi ... ement.html

[JimC]

Asking once or twice is fine, but continuing after that, in the face of a clear-cut "no" starts to become stalking and harassment.

[Rum]

I think men are just going to have to grit our teeth and take it for a while. Seems to me there's a bit of retribution and balancing of the scales going on right now. Men probably deserve all that's coming even if there are individual miscarriages of justice - however regrettable that might be.

Many women would of course point to the huge number of rapes and other misogynistic offences that go unresolved every year.

[pErvinalia]

More men are raped than women. Just ask 42.

[NineBerry]

@Forty Two: Do you want to have sex with me? I am hot as an oven!

[NineBerry]

Asking once or twice is fine, but continuing after that, in the face of a clear-cut "no" starts to become stalking and harassment.

Asking even once is not fine in a business setting.

[JimC]

Spoilsport!