March 31, 2009 at 1:46 pm
GSquared (3/31/2009)
Jack Corbett (3/31/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (3/30/2009)
The definition is in the ear of the victim/beholder. However they have to let you know.Overhearing something isn't harassment. If they say something, like that offends me and I can hear you, then the next time it is.
With verbal communications, I think you need to set that standard for each person, and the first offense has to be let go. Physically, no first chances. You don't get to touch anyone.
I agree that anything physical is definitely a one and done offense, but I do disagree with the statement that the "definition is in the ear of the victim/beholder". Certainly offense can be taken without it being harassment and sure, if someone is offended by what I say or do and they let me know, I should be careful not to do that thing again in their presence, but if I do and they walk into range when I do it again I'm not harassing them unless I do it intentionally for them to hear or see it.
The problem in this is that it's very hard to prove "lack of intent", just as it's hard to prove any negative. With lawyers and courts operating on the value of victimhood these days, you may just have to prove that negative, at your own cost, and with low chances of success.
I definitely agree with you. That's what my point is, when you let each individual set the standard you are setting up chaos. You need a standard, which will likely be flawed, that is created apart from the individuals. At least with a flawed standard everyone knows where they stand.
I think we agree that the example given in the first post was harassment and that harassment doesn't have to be physical, but can be verbal.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
March 31, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Bigfoot (3/31/2009)
The definition is in the ear of the victim/beholder. However they have to let you know.I disagree that the definition is in the ear of the beholder.
My aunt was accused of being racist. She was explaining that she did not where green on Saint Patrick's day because her husband is black Irish and if she wore a color it would be orange. Someone listening assumed she was making an ethic joke.
I have to agree, it happens all too often that people automatically assume something is meant to be offensive or racist even though they don't know the whole picture. Your Aunt had obviously become comfortable with that sort of material after being with her husband, but so many people are so quick to "cry wolf" on racism and racist comments.
March 31, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The problem in this is that it's very hard to prove "lack of intent", just as it's hard to prove any negative. With lawyers and courts operating on the value of victimhood these days, you may just have to prove that negative, at your own cost, and with low chances of success.
"Innocent until proven guilty" can very quickly turn into "the party with the best lawyer wins."
March 31, 2009 at 2:00 pm
mlang (3/31/2009)
The problem in this is that it's very hard to prove "lack of intent", just as it's hard to prove any negative. With lawyers and courts operating on the value of victimhood these days, you may just have to prove that negative, at your own cost, and with low chances of success.
"Innocent until proven guilty" can very quickly turn into "the party with the best lawyer wins."
"Innocent till proven guilty" applies to criminal cases. In litigation (civil cases), that's not the standard. Neither is, "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's just simply "who's the most convincing" in those, in cases where there isn't a legally binding contract in violation. At least, that's my understanding of it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 31, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Quotes from the American Law Encyclopedia Vol 2, Burden of Proof entry which essentially is the "innocent until proven guilty" standard.
In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.
In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
March 31, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Yep.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 31, 2009 at 6:40 pm
GSquared (3/31/2009)
Jack Corbett (3/31/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (3/30/2009)
The definition is in the ear of the victim/beholder. However they have to let you know.Overhearing something isn't harassment. If they say something, like that offends me and I can hear you, then the next time it is.
With verbal communications, I think you need to set that standard for each person, and the first offense has to be let go. Physically, no first chances. You don't get to touch anyone.
I agree that anything physical is definitely a one and done offense, but I do disagree with the statement that the "definition is in the ear of the victim/beholder". Certainly offense can be taken without it being harassment and sure, if someone is offended by what I say or do and they let me know, I should be careful not to do that thing again in their presence, but if I do and they walk into range when I do it again I'm not harassing them unless I do it intentionally for them to hear or see it.
The problem in this is that it's very hard to prove "lack of intent", just as it's hard to prove any negative. With lawyers and courts operating on the value of victimhood these days, you may just have to prove that negative, at your own cost, and with low chances of success.
I recall a conversation on "discriminatory jokes" that I had with a good friend once. She had a rule for determining whethere a joke was discriminatory or not, and I have to say it works pretty well. Just replace the protagonist of the joke with the word "elephant" (or for jokes with multiple protagonists your can use additional animals). If the joke is still funny, then it's not discrimanatory.
We just need to find a similar "rule" for other types of discrimination!
Now if you'll pardon me, the PETA people are breaking down my door... (no elephants allowed in the circus or in jokes) 😀
Steph Brown
Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply