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

Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 115 posts

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#21

Post by anon12345690 »

gpm wrote: post #9
wildmusings wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

I bet youll change your mind if/when you get accused, especially if its false. Guess you should hope that never happens then right?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#22

Post by forapurpose »

sverige wrote: post #15
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

I would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

I think these comments are exaggerated and misrepresent the situation, and no basis in fact is provided:

> the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" ...

> the media collectively decided that it was a good idea to promote abandoning the principle of "innocent until proven guilty,"

The stories I've read have done a good and careful job of corroborating and verifying their stories. Those that don't are subject to massive libel lawsuits like the one that shut down Gawker.

> smugly righteous

> hysteria

This is name-calling, which doesn't add to the discussion, and it's against nobody in particular, which makes it meaningless. Who, by name, is smugly righteous or hysterical? And do those people affect us? Are they representative or influential somehow?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#23

Post by rectang »

anon12345690 wrote: post #21
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

I bet youll change your mind if/when you get accused, especially if its false. Guess you should hope that never happens then right?

This knife cuts both ways: you might change your mind if you were subject to sexual abuse.

"If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested." -- Tom Wolfe

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#24

Post by dominotw »

greglindahl wrote: post #18
wildmusings wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"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.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#25

Post by greglindahl »

dominotw wrote: post #24
greglindahl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#26

Post by amputect »

forapurpose wrote: post #22
sverige wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

I think these comments are exaggerated and misrepresent the situation, and no basis in fact is provided: > the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" ... > the media collectively decided that it was a good idea to promote abandoning the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," The stories I've read have done a good and careful job of corroborating and verifying their stories. Those that don't are subject t…

> The stories I've read have done a good and careful job of corroborating and verifying their stories.

There are several good recent examples of this: - the project veritas employee trying to shop a false abortion story to the post - the schumer accusation that was shown to be falsified - weinstein's fake accuser that was planted by his own team to discredit investigations

When people come with false information, it gets found and reported on, because journalists do their due dilligence. News organizations are really careful about this kind of thing, because screwing up here is a really good way to get your entire org badly burned.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#27

Post by dominotw »

greglindahl wrote: post #25
dominotw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#28

Post by dominotw »

gpm wrote: post #9
wildmusings wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

> something as serious as sexual assault

This article is about "sexual harassment" which isn't illegal according to federal law. You are conflating it with "sexual assault" which is a crime.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#29

Post by wedoydphc »

Microsoft's hand was probably forced.

"Mr. Smith of Microsoft said he first became aware of the Senate bill after meeting with Mr. Graham in Washington to discuss cybersecurity and immigration. Mr. Graham urged Microsoft to support the bill, Mr. Smith said."

Urged is likely a euphemism. There was probably a quid pro quo.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#30

Post by gpm »

dominotw wrote: post #28
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

> something as serious as sexual assault This article is about "sexual harassment" which isn't illegal according to federal law. You are conflating it with "sexual assault" which is a crime.

You're right, I wrote the wrong thing, they are substantially different things and shouldn't be confused.

It changes absolutely nothing about what I intended to say, sexual harassment is serious, it still goes through the court system, due process still applies, preventing it is good for the public.

Post reply on HN