Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 359 posts

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#51

Post by Pica_soO »

vkou wrote: post #24
celeritascelery wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Rape will land you jail for a long time (as it should) but rape hoaxing has almost no consequences.

Let's suppose that false rape accusations are a wide-spread problem. They aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape, but let's suppose that they are. How exactly do you propose to deal with them, without a chilling effect on reporting real rapes? It is a crime that is notoriously hard to convict, to the point where most victims keep silent.

If you accuse somebody of a crime s/he didnt commit- and it comes out, you should suffer the same sentence - circumstances of the person you accused would have received as sentence.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#52

Post by [deleted] »

vkou wrote: post #40
hdhdbebbbdhdvd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A problem can be serious without being wide-spread, and this is a great example -- false accusations (of any crime), though rare, sow the seeds of doubt in the testimony of every accuser. Every widely publicized false accusation (Duke lacrosse rape, etc) causes hundreds or perhaps even thousands of real rapists to go free and rape more people, since jurors take the possibility of a false accusation as "reasonable dou…

> A problem can be serious without being wide-spread Rape and sexual harassment are problems that are both serious, and incredibly wide-spread. They are also under-reported and under-prosecuted, and even when they are, well, that young gentleman is such a good athlete, and has such a bright future, we can't destroy his life over something minor like that. You could also bet that actual rape victims would not come for…

[deleted]

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

curun1r wrote: post #33
taneq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous allegations without any corroborating evidence. The accused must always be given the benefit of the doubt in case of any allegations without corroborating evidence. This current trend of "anyone accused of sexual harassment is guilty unless proven innocent" is not justice.

There's no such thing as guilty or innocent when it comes to sexual harassment. It's not a crime and only companies can be liable for anything related to it, not the actual people doing the harassment. So what we're seeing is these incidents being played out in the court of public opinion. And unlike the law, there are no hard and fast rules in that courtroom. There's only cultural norms that are still evolving. We s…

> There's no such thing as guilty or innocent when it comes to sexual harassment.

Legally speaking, sure, because it's a statutory tort rather than a crime, but “guilt” and “innocence” each have a non-legal-jargon meaning which precedes and is the source of the legal meaning, and which is clearly what is usually meant in non-technical discussions.

> It's not a crime and only companies can be liable for anything related to it, not the actual people doing the harassment.

Correct under federal law (at least, that's how most courts have applied the law), explicitly not true for some state (including California) sexual harassment laws, at least when the harasser is a supervisor, as personal liability of supervisors for harassment exists.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#55

Post by kbart »

curun1r wrote: post #46
kbart wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's no such thing as guilty or innocent when it comes to sexual harassment." If there are no procedures and we leave justice to public opinion then it's nothing more than a witchhunt. "It's not a crime " It is in pretty much any modern country.

Perhaps, but unlike Salem, it's one with some actual witches.

By this logic, we could abolish legal system at all and rely on anonymous accusations and public opinion to do all the bidding, because you know, there are real killers/rapers/thieves/robbers etc. out there and the accusation might be true.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#56

Post by devnonymous »

vkou wrote: post #40
hdhdbebbbdhdvd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A problem can be serious without being wide-spread, and this is a great example -- false accusations (of any crime), though rare, sow the seeds of doubt in the testimony of every accuser. Every widely publicized false accusation (Duke lacrosse rape, etc) causes hundreds or perhaps even thousands of real rapists to go free and rape more people, since jurors take the possibility of a false accusation as "reasonable dou…

> A problem can be serious without being wide-spread Rape and sexual harassment are problems that are both serious, and incredibly wide-spread. They are also under-reported and under-prosecuted, and even when they are, well, that young gentleman is such a good athlete, and has such a bright future, we can't destroy his life over something minor like that. You could also bet that actual rape victims would not come for…

>> A problem can be serious without being wide-spread

> Rape and sexual harassment are problems that are both serious, and incredibly wide-spread

Are you being intentionally obtuse or just didn't read the comment before replying? Giving you the benefit of doubt in case you were wondering about the down votes, the parent was talking about false claims of rape/harassment being less widespread.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#57

Post by InclinedPlane »

wand3r wrote: post #36

This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People…

OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules.

First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the workplace that romance or sex should see the light of day is if every party is fully empowered to decline with not even the slightest hint of impact to the workplace, career, employment, etc.

A good rule of thumb: unless a coworker is inarguably already a personal friend outside of work then introducing even the hint of romance into an otherwise entirely professional relationship could be not just awkward but potentially compromising. In every situation, the balance of doubt should always fall on the side of not engaging in romantic behavior with coworkers. Another good rule of thumb: if there is a level or authority imbalance (enormously more so if there is a direct superior/inferior relationship between two coworkers) then everyone should tread ten times or a hundred times more carefully than they would with any other relationship.

Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt. In a dating situation with all the complexities, minefields, and pitfalls of a work environment if an overture is made that is unwanted that almost certainly means that the person making it fucked up royally. They failed to read the other person, and they made them uncomfortable, and they complicated their professional relationship.

The 500 startups thing is a near perfect case of the sort of sexual harassment that many get away with because it has just the thinnest thread of deniability[1]. People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship.

If this sounds like a lot of restrictions, it is, but it's the only way to make sure that people feel safe and comfortable in their workplace and in their career. The workplace is not a dating service. If you happen to make a friendship at work that turns into a romance, congratulations, but that's not what it's for.

If the first, or only, thought you jump to when thinking about a workplace where romantic overtures are a lot more difficult is "that sucks, how are dudes even gonna get with any ladies ever?" instead of "it would be nice if we could get to a workplace that wasn't so toxic it kept hemorrhaging female talent by the day" then you are part of the problem.

[1] https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-blac...

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#58

Post by adjkant »

tepidandroid wrote: post #19
taneq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous allegations without any corroborating evidence. The accused must always be given the benefit of the doubt in case of any allegations without corroborating evidence. This current trend of "anyone accused of sexual harassment is guilty unless proven innocent" is not justice.

Careful with that kind if talk here. In this kind of social political climate logic does not always prevail. Just go look at some past HN threads regarding sexual harassment. The sheer number of people who react emotionally to allegations of sexual harassment is truly astounding. All rationality goes out the window with men throwing themselves over each other to proclaim "I BELIEVE YOU" instead of asking for the leas…

This is a huge straw man if I've ever seen one (and present in many other posts on this thread). To act as if there isn't any logic in the opposing side isn't going to get anywhere.

Because of the very nature of sexual assault, providing evidence up to the standards of the US criminal legal system is very hard to do. It likely means that more harassers get off and very few get wrongful sentences. The logic in supporting a standard that requires less than the US criminal legal system currently is that it will help put away many more guilty people and put away few/none non-guilty people given the rarity of false accusations with evidence that would say, pass a 50/50 guilt test.

The lack of criminal recourse leads to a court of public opinion being the victim's only option often. The court of public opinion is far from fair, which leads back to the idea of working on the criminal recourse options to allow for more victims to actually report and fix this.

You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking).

In this case, someone was wrongly accused, and even under a 50/50 system, it's clear the charges would not go through, and yes obviously the pre-meditated wrongful accuser should face a punishment. I think some jail time for a pre-meditated false accusation is more than fair. But a discussion and a call for a different legal standard given the uniqueness of these types of cases is perfectly logical.

Instead of complaining about the public lynch mob and blaming the mass of people who likely won't stop, discuss and focus on the problems that prevent it. Like actually getting rape kits tested, creating more avenues for sexual assault reporting via a calmer system than anonymous blog posts, etc.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#59

Post by SeoxyS »

wand3r wrote: post #36

This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People…

> watching the accuser ride the publicity to raise a round.

Can you elaborate on this? Did I miss part of the story—did one of the accuser actually do that?

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#60

Post by Kenji »

I would simply put a law in place that if it can be proven that the sexual harassment accusation is completely fabricated, then the accuser must serve the exact jail time that a person would serve who acted out all the accusations. That would stop all the shenanigans instantly.
Post reply on HN