From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Sexual harassment on the net??
Date: 18 Nov 1992 19:39:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: krusty.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@krusty

In article <NML.92Nov17203930@csa.bu.edu> nml@csa.bu.edu (Newton Loui)  
writes:
>In article <c1=I03z3bbsI00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com  
(James Preston) writes:
>
>   jim@neb (Jim Hood) writes:
>
>   }>From LXP111@psuvm.psu.edu Mon Nov 16 12:57:25 1992
>   }>Hey Jen, I have the same problem wit da women on this net..heh heh  
heh.  Hey
>   }>since were both netsexobjects...will you do me baby fuck me.....just  
kidding ag
>   }>ain.
>   }You know...  Joke or not, legally that could be considered sexual  
harassment.
>[stuff deleted about possible repercussions]
>
>   And what a sad and sorry comment that is on the completely irrational
>   and hysterical atmosphere that has come to surround "sexual  
harrassment".
>
>   Not to even mention how this undercuts the seriousness of true sexual
>   harrassment.  Jokingly saying "fuck me" is in the exact same category
>   as fondling or other unwanted physical contact.  How many people think
>   that this will make people take the former more seriously?  How many
>   think that it will make people take the latter more lightly?
>
>   --James Preston
>
>"Completely irrational and hysterical"?  Jennifer had just posted that
>she had received a lot of e-mail harassing her, then
><LXP111@psuvm.psu.edu> posts that sort of message.  If Jennifer
>believes that she is being harassed, then that treatment *is*
>harassment.  <LXP111@psuvm.psu.edu> certainly didn't do it to cheer
>her up nor to give her support.
>
>How would you define *false* sexual harassment?
>
>Clarify your former and latter points.  This doesn't undercut the
>seriousness of sexual harassment of any form for me.  I will also
>*NOT* take lightly "jokingly" sexually harassing anyone.
>
>Why is it that people love to pick on other people, and then when
>confronted by the people defending themselves, cry out "But I was only
>joking"?

My $.02:
That comment of <LXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>'s is sexual harassment, but putting
it in the same category as unwanted fondling is like putting a punch in
the nose in the same category as a drive-by shooting.

The comment that if yd believes yd is being harassed, then yd IS being
harassed opens a sizable can of worms.  If a person is considered
harassed simply because yd says yd is, then there will be people who will
claim harassment when none reasonably exists, just to gain power over
others.  On the other hand, who's to say that no harassment is going on?

A compromise, perhaps:  If it's decided that the harasser couldn't have
known yd's actions would be taken as harassment by the victim, the
harasser should not be punished, but given a severe reprimand.  If the
harasser's actions are "clearly" harassment ("clearly" defined by
those responsible for judgment, or by law), or if the harasser knew
ahead of time yd's actions would be taken as harassment (e.g. yd had
already done it before, and warned about doing it again), then more
serious punisment is warranted.

Depends on the judgment of the judging body (company review board, jury,
etc.), but then, justice always does.

Incidentally, <LXP111@psuvm.psu.edu> should have known that his comment
would be considered harassment, so punishment would be appropriate.

Joking at the expense of another is always wrong, whether sexual or not.
-- 
| Michael Agney          | Yd - gender neutral pronoun    |
|                        |                                |
|                        | Source:  Stories by Alison     |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu | Tellure, back issues of Analog |
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels