Harvey Weinstein

[TheHuckster]

Based off her comments, it's the definition of harassment.

"A fleeting touch of the knee" is not harassment. Hell, that could even mean accidental touching. If such accusations could be made based off of that, I'll never enter a crowded elevator and will have to buy first class airfare whereever I go.

Later, he asked her out. That, too, is not harassment. If he did it over and over again, or reacted negatively to her rejection, then that should be investigated. But merely asking someone out should never be considered harassment.

[Canarr]

Based off her comments, it's the definition of harassment.

That's not what I read from her comments. Could you elaborate on that, please?

People in the US flirt with co-workers all the time. It's all about knowing your audience though and if you don't know your co-worker is okay with you physically touching them, you don't physically touch them.

And how would you know that? Do you ask?

In America, legally just one time is enough for it to be harassment.

I checked yourEEOC, and it appears you're right.

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Emphasis is mine, again. So, the law doesn't make a difference between non-harassing and harassing behavior, just between legal and illegal harassment. That seems seriously stupid.

German law operates on the premise that for any illegal act, there must be some kind of objective standard by which you can know in advance whether or not you are about to break the law. Like, tapping someone's shoulder to get their attention is fine, tapping someone's genitals generally isn't.

However, if "unwanted" is basically the only thing that decides whether or not an act is harassment, then how, exactly, is someone supposed to know whether or not they are about to harass someone? When the mere fact that your attention is unwanted turns asking a coworker out from flirting to harassment?

[Greenday]

And how, pray tell, do you know that? So far, Green has denied ever doing that, much less doing it intentionally.

Okay, seriously: do people in the US not flirt with their coworkers? Do people there not fall in love (or maybe just in lust) with each other, and act on that? Yes, you don't slap your hand on your coworker's knee during a meeting and say, "So, how's about we two meet in the supply closet at lunchtime?", while suggestively waggling your eyebrows.

But touching is a common step in the progression of flirting with each other. It is a non-verbal expression of interest in the other person. And it is not, per se, a bad thing - nor is it immediately harassment.

The definition of "to harass" in the online dictionary is:

to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

The bolding is mine. What this means: you're harassing someone if you keep going on after they've told you no. Asking a coworker out the first time is not harassment, but if they express their disinterest, and you still ask again, then it is, yes.

The same goes for touching - although you generally need a higher degree of familiarity with the other person before you proceed to physical contact, of course. But the first time you try to escalate the relationship with another person to a higher level is not necessarily harassment, and should not be treated as such.

And no, that does not mean that people are "getting away" with anything, nor will touching someone while flirting necessarily be a slippery slope to harassment. It's not the same, and the former is not some sort of gateway crime leading to the latter.

Based off her comments, it's the definition of harassment.

People in the US flirt with co-workers all the time. It's all about knowing your audience though and if you don't know your co-worker is okay with you physically touching them, you don't physically touch them.

In America, legally just one time is enough for it to be harassment. If you have to guess whether it's okay to touch your co-worker, you just don't do it.

[Canarr]

It was intentional contact and it was unwanted.

And how, pray tell, do you know that? So far, Green has denied ever doing that, much less doing it intentionally.

It is absolutely sexual harassment. It's an unwanted sexual advance. That's an inappropriate thing to do to someone at work and the kind of thing that leads to much worse if left unchecked. Because it really IS a slippery slope. If you can get away with a hand on someone's knee, what else can you get away with? A hand on the thigh? Arm around the waist? Hugging someone closely from behind?

No unwanted contact, period. No one should have to deal with that.

Okay, seriously: do people in the US not flirt with their coworkers? Do people there not fall in love (or maybe just in lust) with each other, and act on that? Yes, you don't slap your hand on your coworker's knee during a meeting and say, "So, how's about we two meet in the supply closet at lunchtime?", while suggestively waggling your eyebrows.

But touching is a common step in the progression of flirting with each other. It is a non-verbal expression of interest in the other person. And it is not, per se, a bad thing - nor is it immediately harassment.

The definition of "to harass" in the online dictionary is:

to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

The bolding is mine. What this means: you're harassing someone if you keep going on after they've told you no. Asking a coworker out the first time is not harassment, but if they express their disinterest, and you still ask again, then it is, yes.

The same goes for touching - although you generally need a higher degree of familiarity with the other person before you proceed to physical contact, of course. But the first time you try to escalate the relationship with another person to a higher level is not necessarily harassment, and should not be treated as such.

And no, that does not mean that people are "getting away" with anything, nor will touching someone while flirting necessarily be a slippery slope to harassment. It's not the same, and the former is not some sort of gateway crime leading to the latter.

[protege]

What they really want is to humiliate and dominate their victims. I don't see how legally-purchased sex would change that.

I have a feeling that if it was legal, nothing would change. For those assholes, like you said, it's not about sex. It's about control. No, what I think would happen, is they'd throw out the same attitude you get in stores. That is, "I'm paying your salary, do my bidding..."

[Talon]

Maybe if prostitution were legal, things might be different.

I highly doubt that.
For the predators of the world, sex is an afterthought. What they really want is to humiliate and dominate their victims. I don't see how legally-purchased sex would change that.

[Greenday]

It was intentional contact and it was unwanted. Every HR policy would consider that sexual harassment. Even US federal government guidelines would says so. Putting your hand on someone's knee is intimate. Even if it's a brush.

[s_stabeler]

um, I have to disagree with you quite strongly there, Greenday. The allegation is "a fleeting hand agianst my knee"- I'm not sure of the heights involved, but if it's literally fleeting contact, I'd be inclined to think "brushed past"- which, while often rude, isn't a sexual advance in the slightest.

The problem is, frankly, if you say "no unwanted contact period"you're going to both get a lot of people punished when they literally had done nothing wrong (I'm talking about literal accidental contact here) as well as trivialising sexual harassment. There's a reason for the saying "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"- if you are too harsh in what constitutes sexual harassment, people will decide they may as well actually harass someone, since they aren't going to get punished any worse.

[Greenday]

But "I think maybe he touched my knee!" isn't sexual harassment, and to try and frame it as such does a huge disservice to actual victims of sexual harassment and violence.

It is absolutely sexual harassment. It's an unwanted sexual advance. That's an inappropriate thing to do to someone at work and the kind of thing that leads to much worse if left unchecked. Because it really IS a slippery slope. If you can get away with a hand on someone's knee, what else can you get away with? A hand on the thigh? Arm around the waist? Hugging someone closely from behind?

No unwanted contact, period. No one should have to deal with that.

[Canarr]

Can I just add that some of these "metoo" harassment allegations are getting to be downright ridiculous?

In the UK, the Deputy PM is under investigation for his alleged behavior against a younger female journalist. What did he do?

In an article in The Times on November 1, Maltby claimed Green put "a fleeting hand against my knee - so brief, it was almost deniable".

And allegedly, he sent her a text asking her out. Green has denied both allegations, but he's still being investigated. For maybe, briefly, putting a hand on someone's knee.

Of course, if you ask Tory MP Anna Soubry, then he "he should go further and step aside from his key Cabinet role while the matter is looked into".

Why? Well, because "to me, as an old criminal barrister it looks like a pattern of behaviour, it’s difficult to believe it would be the first time".

It's not even sure that anything actually happened, at all, much less that it happened repeatedly. But apprently, the mere allegation that something maybe happened should be enough for a politician to step down from his office?

Yes, sexual harassment is horrible, and should be punished according to the law. But "I think maybe he touched my knee!" isn't sexual harassment, and to try and frame it as such does a huge disservice to actual victims of sexual harassment and violence.

[Canarr]

From the article you quote, Spacey hasn't commented on that one yet.

Personally, I agree with you: it very strongly seems that Spacey has a similar history of harassment as Weinstein has. But so far, seeming is all there is, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[Greenday]

Well, according to this article,

a) it was 30 years ago
b) Spacey's saying he doesn't remember
c) he said "if" that happened, it “would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior”

No idea if Spacey is an abusive jackass, or if he just had too much to drink and put the moves on someone who was way too young for him to do that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ha...-actor-n816336

Did he forget about the last decade?

[Canarr]

Well, according to this article,

a) it was 30 years ago
b) Spacey's saying he doesn't remember
c) he said "if" that happened, it “would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior”

No idea if Spacey is an abusive jackass, or if he just had too much to drink and put the moves on someone who was way too young for him to do that.

[s_stabeler]

To be fair:
1. the incident was something like a decade ago, so I suspect it's more "I can't remember exactly what happened, so I can't really confirm it, but since I ws drunk at the time, they are probably not lying"
2. If you read what he said, he outright said HIS behaviour was unacceptable- which, IMHO, makes some difference (as in, most celebs claim they did nothing wrong- he at least acknowledges he did something wrong.
3. I don't think he blamed his homosexuality- it's more a case of either unfortunate timing in when he chose to come out, or this prompted him to decide to come out.

don't get me wrong- what he did wasn't acceptable, however i'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's grown up since.

[Greenday]

Kevin Spacey - What a jackass. "I totally don't remember this incident at all. But I'm sorry for what I did while I was drunk. Also, I'm closeted gay so that probably affected it."

So he doesn't remember the incident at all but he remembers being drunk when it happened? How does that work?

And then goes on to discredit homosexuality at the same time. Piece of shit.