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

151–160 of 359 posts

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

#151

Post by ThomPete »

irb wrote: post #128
mcappleton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

No that would mean that it would have to be proven that the claim was false with intent.

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

#152

Post by vertex-four »

jlebrech wrote: post #150
vertex-four wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you do. If you behave to the detriment of one gender but not another, that's sexism. You then say "sorry, didn't mean that", and change your behaviour now that you know.

sure, assuming someone has been crying is dumb. noticing a change of appearance is something women want you to do when it's a positive thing ie. new haircut. but if it's negative it's probably best to reword what you're saying in a more positive way. but you can talk to men how you want, they won't care. so yes you have to behave differently to both genders.

I said "to the detriment of", not "differently", for a start.

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

#153

Post by crush-n-spread »

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…

Ah, don't get to twisted about it. The world is much less "sick" than it ever has been. We are dealing with the world of business, and that world is won by people who will do anything to win.

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

#154

Post by jlebrech »

vertex-four wrote: post #152
jlebrech wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, assuming someone has been crying is dumb. noticing a change of appearance is something women want you to do when it's a positive thing ie. new haircut. but if it's negative it's probably best to reword what you're saying in a more positive way. but you can talk to men how you want, they won't care. so yes you have to behave differently to both genders.

I said "to the detriment of", not "differently", for a start.

so treating both genders equally doesn't always end in equality.

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

#155

Post by peoplewindow »

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.

> They aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape

This is not a statement of fact, that's an assumption you've made.

Actual studies of this are rare and usually bitterly disputed, but part of the reason they're rare is that they tend to reveal alarmingly high false reporting rates. I mean truly disturbingly high.

If you look at cases which are proven to be false, the rate is usually suggested to be somewhere between 5% and 10% of all claims depending on the study.

But this does not imply 90% of accusations have merit. The definition of "false claim" is extremely strict, such that a case that does not proceed because e.g. the alleged victim is caught lying about the events does not count as "false" on the grounds that they might just genuinely be confused. Virtually all claims of rape or sexual assault fail to proceed to actual charges.

The most famous study (by Kanin) examined every single allegation of rape reported to the police department of a small midwestern city. It defined a false accusation to be "any accusation in which the victim admitted it was false". It reported a rate of around 40% of all allegations being false.

> It is a crime that is notoriously hard to convict, to the point where most victims keep silent.

You can't know that. Given that false reporting definitely occurs, victims that keep silent may or may not be real victims. Only investigations can resolve that question. And one reason it's a hard crime to convict is the rate at which accusers recant their accusations or stop cooperating with investigations as they proceed.

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

#156

Post by jbmorgado »

jmcgough wrote: post #8

Incidents like this and that Rolling Stone article do so much damage to real victims of sexual harassment/assault.

What about the real damage, to innocent people, being burned in the public square and getting their personal and professional life destroyed just because you are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual harassment accusations?

Shouldn't be those we should be worrying about right now, when discussing these news?

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

#157

Post by jbmorgado »

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.

> "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."

Can you provide a source for that?

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

#158

Post by belorn »

irb wrote: post #128
mcappleton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

The idea seems directly connected with an other idea that is sadly fairly common: assumed guilt. If we assumes that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, then the power imbalance is so great that we need to increase the counter weight by increasing the cost of false accusations.

Personally I prefer the old system of innocent until proven guilty. You loose the mob justice, and you can't demand a lower standard of evidence, but in return people can report crimes without fear of repercussions. It is a fair trade, with the only drawback that a guilty person will have their punishment delayed until the justice system concludes with a guilty verdict.

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

#159

Post by vertex-four »

jlebrech wrote: post #154
vertex-four wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "to the detriment of", not "differently", for a start.

so treating both genders equally doesn't always end in equality.

Indeed it doesn't!

However, the reasoning for that is interesting - the primary reasons women get more upset when you speak about their appearance negatively when compared to men is that women constantly have it drilled into them that their appearance is one of the most important things about them, from a relatively early age. We have a combination of media and other people who do that - often even other women.

It's something to be solved, but as the situation stands right now, yeah, criticising women on their dress/makeup/haircut only serves to further that - because women have generally already had significantly different experiences than men by the time you meet them.

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

#160

Post by irb »

nopatternhere wrote: post #141
irb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

> Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that. That's not how it works, is it? it is not a battle where someone has to be guilty - either the accused or the accuser. Someone can be acquitted without anyone lying, or making false statements, or anything else. Just a few examples: insufficient evidence to prosecute, contradictory timelin…

Ok, that's fair, I was being a bit over dramatic.

However, I still think that the kind of 'eye for an eye' approach proposed by the comment I was relying to would have a non-trivial, negative impact on the reporting of crimes. Just as guilty people can be acquitted, innocent people can be found guilty (even if it's not automatic), and this means that the accuser is exposing themselves to risk.

Fundamentally, no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime.

Post reply on HN