Tipping Point - Sexual Harassment In America

[LuckyNumber7]

Wow.

Wow what? Look at the way you talk to people, dude. People typically just have longer fuses than me, but you irritate a lot of people with the way you talk to them.

The fact that I'm struggling to respond to you in a timely manner in a civil discussion because of being irritated by him yet again is one thing. The fact that you're promoting him is another.

 

[mama cass]

The fact that I'm struggling to respond to you in a timely manner in a civil discussion because of being irritated by him yet again is one thing. The fact that you're promoting him is another.

i just agreed with him - i think your reaction (e.g. insults, asshole, troll) was a bit uncalled for tbh - i thought a solid discussion was being had!

 

[LuckyNumber7]

what penalty would you get for that in the US? in France, you could get a suspended sentence and a hefty fine at the very least... (racism doesn't have to be inciting violence to be an offence here)

Oh please! I have been called similar things in France, and *nothing* happened. There is not some grand society of people being arrested for insulting someone. There are numbers for this. I won't pretend to be an expert on it, as I don't live there. But I did get a chance to read up on it over the past few days. French hate speech laws are not as simple as you're describing. In most cases, the result in not criminal, but civil, much like in the US. The french laws just appear to offer more paths to criminal charge, say, against folks like the Westboro Baptist Church. Something that directly contradicts US free speech laws, but does not necessarily imply that society accepts these things.

In the US, you would face no criminal charge for what I've suggested, not by a long shot. You could, probably would, be fired from your job. If a history or enough of a case existed, a civil complaint could be filed, resulting in what are effectively "fines" that go to the victim. There is a robust societal architecture that wards off hate speech in the United States, it's just done differently than in France. The stark contrast is our first amendment, which protects people who use hate speech that otherwise causes no direct harm to someone. And, at that point, you're delving into a philosophical argument of what is more liberal... forcing people to allow other people to be free while taking away their freedom, or letting people run free with the risk of them impinging on someone else's freedom. That... that is an age old debate. How one country has chosen to tackle it versus the other does not mean their societies are unequal in regards to their views of social prejudice, the amount of prejudice existing in society, or how they respond to social prejudices.

If we trace back a couple of steps, I certainly did highlight a few areas where US society is dramatically different: guns and healthcare. Those are the obvious ones.

 

[Nick66]

If a history or enough of a case existed, a civil complaint could be filed, resulting in what are effectively "fines" that go to the victim.

I'm really sorry, but this isn't true either. There are no "civil fines" for someone calling you a racial slur. A "civil fine" would be as unconstitutional as a criminal penalty, as both would be imposed by the government.

Racial slurs are protected speech. Period. Except in very, very limited cases, in the US the Government cannot infringe on your freedom of speech. They can't pick and choose which speech is allowed and which is not. All they can do is put time, place and manner restrictions on how, when and where you express your speech in public spaces. But they can't police the content, with very narrow exceptions (and racial slurs are not among them).

Otherwise, yes you could be fired from your job. And rightly so.

 

[mama cass]

Oh please! I have been called similar things in France, and *nothing* happened. There is not some grand society of people being arrested for insulting someone.

obviously, if it was in a public place, with witnesses who were willing to back you up, you could have filed a complaint with the police - as the victim, it would be up to you to pursue it (unless someone else reported it, or the perpetrator dropped themselves in it) and then the police and the prosecutor would decide whether to take it further or not

jeesus do you have to be so defensive all the time?

ps- i should clarify my "suspended sentence and hefty fine at the very least" - didn't word it too well - basically, you can first have a warning with what we call a "sursis" (roughly suspended sentence) i.e. a period of a year or 3 years or whatever in which, if you repeat the offence, then you will then get gonged for the initial fine, and then an extra fine on top for the second offence... so yeah, you might not initially have a fine, but if you do it again, they will come down heavy on you... i don't know what the technical equivalent terms would be for that in English (but in more serious cases, you can be given the fine directly - obviously it depends on the severity of the case)

In the US, you would face no criminal charge for what I've suggested, not by a long shot. You could, probably would, be fired from your job. If a history or enough of a case existed, a civil complaint could be filed, resulting in what are effectively "fines" that go to the victim. There is a robust societal architecture that wards off hate speech in the United States, it's just done differently than in France.

yet you still can't give me one concrete example of a high profile case?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm really sorry, but this isn't true either. There are no "civil fines" for someone calling you a racial slur. A "civil fine" would be as unconstitutional as a criminal penalty, as both would be imposed by the government.

Racial slurs are protected speech. Period. Except in very, very limited cases, in the US the Government cannot infringe on your freedom of speech. They can't pick and choose which speech is allowed and which is not. All they can do is put time, place and manner restrictions on how, when and where you express your speech in public spaces. But they can't police the content, with very narrow exceptions (and racial slurs are not among them).

Otherwise, yes you could be fired from your job. And rightly so.

Continue to keep ignoring my words and skewing them to your condescending arguments. You're a waste of time.

 

[Nick66]

Continue to keep ignoring my words and skewing them to your condescending arguments. You're a waste of time.

How is simply stating the law as it stands "condescending"? You've made some flat out incorrect representations of US law in this thread that are misleading to anyone reading....don't get upset that someone is correcting you.

I've told you when I thought you had some good points, and pointed out where I think you're wrong...and remained civil with you throughout, despite you calling me a "troll", "asshole", "waste of time" and telling me to "fuck off". Personal insults and vitriol are not an argument. You're a smart guy, surely you can express yourself better than this, even if you don't like what I'm saying or how I'm saying it.

And and I can't help sort of chuckle at this scene where a rocket scientist in the UK tells someone in France they're wrong about France and a lawyer they're wrong about the law. No one is infallible (I know I'm not), and you're entitled to your opinion, but you should back it up with facts, not venom. Again, no one here is arguing with you about rocket science, and if you told me something about it, I'd have the good sense to listen.

 

[mama cass]

French hate speech laws are not as simple as you're describing

pretty simple really - another example, when we had problems with the racist neighbour, another neighbour, who was also having problems (the nasties were terrorizing the whole community, so it was a rite of passage of sorts into the local community for us lol ), asked for an official mediator to help deal with the situation, mainly to get an official involved and get everything recorded formally by the council in writing, and the mediator chose his words very carefully and would only refer to the nasty wife as "psychologically fragile" - he couldn't use the term "folle" (for "mad", "crazy", "insane") for instance or anything pejorative in this public context as that would publicly undermine her human person (we have laws for that too) - so make of that what you will too!

 

[kiwilad]

I learn a lot from fym threads. Knowledgeable clever people from around the world who know lots of stuff i don't. So i love it when a nick or anitram comes on and presents facts that clear up some argument or another.
That isn't trolling or condescending or being contrarian. It's just conversing in facts.
And by god some of the folk calling nick contrary (not LN7 mind you) have had no qualms cutting strips off me in various threads if I've said something factually incorrect or highlighted my ignorance about something.

 

[Diemen]

LN7, please refrain from the personal insults and attacks.

 

[BVS]

I'm really sorry, but this isn't true either. There are no "civil fines" for someone calling you a racial slur. A "civil fine" would be as unconstitutional as a criminal penalty, as both would be imposed by the government.

Racial slurs are protected speech. Period. Except in very, very limited cases, in the US the Government cannot infringe on your freedom of speech. They can't pick and choose which speech is allowed and which is not. All they can do is put time, place and manner restrictions on how, when and where you express your speech in public spaces. But they can't police the content, with very narrow exceptions (and racial slurs are not among them).

Otherwise, yes you could be fired from your job. And rightly so.

Have there been civil cases filed against employers, businesses, or individuals for using racists language? Have any been won?

 

[Nick66]

Have there been civil cases filed against employers, businesses, or individuals for using racists language? Have any been won?

Well, certainly companies have been successfully sued under civil rights laws, and racist language used by an employer, for example, can be evidence of violations of the civil rights act. You can't discriminate based on race, and use of racial epithets can be evidence of such discrimination. A discriminatory work environment is not protected by the Constitution. It's the discrimination that's illegal.

Or, for example, a racist employer may be sued by an employee for harassment or unfair treatment under employment discrimination laws. But in these cases, it's not the racial language itself that runs afoul of the law, it's the harassment or discrimination. If you're subject to racial abuse at work, that's harassment...but the same would go for any other type of harassment.

The have been numerous such cases over the years, some with significant damages awarded. The fact that certain speech is protected under the Constitution doesn't grant blanket civil immunity from other illegal actions. Just because it's not illegal to call someone an "old fat" for example, doesn't mean you can engage in age discrimination.

I'm not aware of an instance of a private employee, in his or her individual capacity, being "fined" by the Government solely for using a racial slur. There's no law against racial slurs per se. But again, if complaint was related to some kind of harassment or discrimination, the racial slur would certainly be evidence that such harassment or discrimination was occurring however. But in any event, no employer has ever been sued or sanctioned by the government for running afoul of "hate speech" laws, because such laws don't exist in the US.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

If a history or enough of a case existed, a civil complaint could be filed, resulting in what are effectively "fines" that go to the victim.

I'm really sorry, but this isn't true either. There are no "civil fines" for someone calling you a racial slur.

There's no point in responding to you seriously because you do shit like this. You seek an opportunity to "educate" someone by choosing to interpret their words to be as uneducated as possible. If you read that quote that you unnecessarily go on some long winded post about, you'll see that what you've quoted is - yet again - an example of me communicating with someone who 1) likely doesn't know the full extent of US law and 2) doesn't need to know it. The snippet was a quick way of conveying similar treatment for similar circumstance. Hence the quote, "fines." I never claimed there were "civil fines," you've just made that up to make some bullshit post. You absolutely love talking to people like that. It's frustrating.

And if you're contesting that people don't get sued all the time for workplace harassment associated with racial, sexual, or gender type speech, you're either a really bad lawyer, or you think your job to argue continues on these forums.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There's no point in responding to you seriously because you do shit like this. You seek an opportunity to "educate" someone by choosing to interpret their words to be as uneducated as possible. If you read that quote that you unnecessarily go on some long winded post about, you'll see that what you've quoted is - yet again - an example of me communicating with someone who 1) likely doesn't know the full extent of US law and 2) doesn't need to know it. The snippet was a quick way of conveying similar treatment for similar circumstance. Hence the quote, "fines." I never claimed there were "civil fines," you've just made that up to make some bullshit post. You absolutely love talking to people like that. It's frustrating.

Fwiw, nothing I'm sure, I agree. He's done that to me and honestly I find it offensive. I'm not trying to "pile on" somebody, not my style.

But I am educated, and I don't look to FYM to get educated in that way by anyone.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

obviously, if it was in a public place, with witnesses who were willing to back you up, you could have filed a complaint with the police - as the victim, it would be up to you to pursue it (unless someone else reported it, or the perpetrator dropped themselves in it) and then the police and the prosecutor would decide whether to take it further or not

Sounds a lot like the sexual harassment stuff we are currently discussing, no?

jeesus do you have to be so defensive all the time?

I'm quite a defensive person, but tbh there's nothing defensive going on between you and I, and I've accepted the fact that you mean no harm with your rather direct approaches you use. So, I'm not sure what you mean in the context of this discussion.

ps- i should clarify my "suspended sentence and hefty fine at the very least" - didn't word it too well - basically, you can first have a warning with what we call a "sursis" (roughly suspended sentence) i.e. a period of a year or 3 years or whatever in which, if you repeat the offence, then you will then get gonged for the initial fine, and then an extra fine on top for the second offence... so yeah, you might not initially have a fine, but if you do it again, they will come down heavy on you... i don't know what the technical equivalent terms would be for that in English (but in more serious cases, you can be given the fine directly - obviously it depends on the severity of the case)

And I'm still not sure what the point of digging so deeply into the legality is. I can only say it a fourth time. Maybe fifth or sixth or seventh if you want to. You're trying to make the argument that France is significantly less racist/sexist/homophobic/overall prejudiced because of laws. This discussion stemmed from my claim that though France has direct laws in place, the US has similar laws or legal measures prohibiting prejudices. You're insistent that these direct laws are a reflection of French society being noticeably less prejudiced than US or UK society. I respect that you're British and can comment on that. I've lived in England, I've lived in France (albeit for a short time), I've lived in the southern US, I've lived in Florida (merely geographically southern but I lived in the progressive northern-like realms), and I currently live in Texas. And this has all been within the last five years.

yet you still can't give me one concrete example of a high profile case?

Well, I'm not sure you even asked. And if you did, I was probably distracted by our educator in chief. I don't need to give you an example of civil suits stemming from prejudices or harassment in the workplace. They happen all the time - typically against the employer for not stopping it. But it's a moot point. It's just an example of how the system in the US handles similar prejudices... if you're actually harming someone.

 

[anitram]

I'm not aware of an instance of a private employee, in his or her individual capacity, being "fined" by the Government solely for using a racial slur. There's no law against racial slurs per se. But again, if complaint was related to some kind of harassment or discrimination, the racial slur would certainly be evidence that such harassment or discrimination was occurring however. But in any event, no employer has ever been sued or sanctioned by the government for running afoul of "hate speech" laws, because such laws don't exist in the US.

Do you practice in the US? I wasn't aware that you did?

I haven't practiced in the US since 2008 (and even then it was only in NY state and a very specialized area) and definitely would not be commenting on case law with this level of certainty - not necessarily with respect to this particular issue summarized in the paragraph above but just your general approach as a bit of a know-it-all about 50 jurisdictions in which I wasn't aware you were licensed? But to each his own I suppose.

 

[BVS]

Well, certainly companies have been successfully sued under civil rights laws, and racist language used by an employer, for example, can be evidence of violations of the civil rights act. You can't discriminate based on race, and use of racial epithets can be evidence of such discrimination. A discriminatory work environment is not protected by the Constitution. It's the discrimination that's illegal.

Or, for example, a racist employer may be sued by an employee for harassment or unfair treatment under employment discrimination laws. But in these cases, it's not the racial language itself that runs afoul of the law, it's the harassment or discrimination. If you're subject to racial abuse at work, that's harassment...but the same would go for any other type of harassment.

The have been numerous such cases over the years, some with significant damages awarded. The fact that certain speech is protected under the Constitution doesn't grant blanket civil immunity from other illegal actions. Just because it's not illegal to call someone an "old fat" for example, doesn't mean you can engage in age discrimination.

I'm not aware of an instance of a private employee, in his or her individual capacity, being "fined" by the Government solely for using a racial slur. There's no law against racial slurs per se. But again, if complaint was related to some kind of harassment or discrimination, the racial slur would certainly be evidence that such harassment or discrimination was occurring however. But in any event, no employer has ever been sued or sanctioned by the government for running afoul of "hate speech" laws, because such laws don't exist in the US.

This would have been a much more civil approach to his post.

 

[mama cass]

And I'm still not sure what the point of digging so deeply into the legality is. I can only say it a fourth time. Maybe fifth or sixth or seventh if you want to. You're trying to make the argument that France is significantly less racist/sexist/homophobic/overall prejudiced because of laws.

don't fucking tell me what i'm trying to do?
ok, to put it clearly - the laws we have in place are a deterrent to gratuitous public expressions of the above directed at the individual, because there are consequences - and not just in a workplace setting - in EVERY public setting if the victim chooses to pursue it... as someone who regularly experienced racism in the UK growing up, it feels nice to think there is legal protection in place - it validates how horrible a thing it is, and it is reassuring to know there can be redress

of course though in private, people can have whatever opinions they want and can be as "racist/sexist/homophobic/overall prejudiced" as they want - is that clear now?

if you're actually harming someone.

harm as in physical or psychological?

meh actually don't bother, i'm done with talking to you

 

[LuckyNumber7]

don't fucking tell me what i'm trying to do?

What're you doing?

meh actually don't bother, i'm done with talking to you

Well next time you suggest I can't take one of your jokes, just remember that you do seem to frequently end a conversation with me in disgust.

 

[mama cass]

What're you doing?




Well next time you suggest I can't take one of your jokes, just remember that you do seem to frequently end a conversation with me in disgust.

dude, there is a reason for that - you're not joking, you're not even being nice - you have repeatedly accused me of being wrong in this discussion, i present you with more facts, and you still don't get the point

 

[LuckyNumber7]

dude, there is a reason for that - you're not joking, you're not even being nice - you have repeatedly accused me of being wrong in this discussion, i present you with more facts, and you still don't get the point

I'm not being nice and I'm also not being mean. I'm just talking to you.

What facts? It's a fact that French society is simply more progressive than the US and UK? It's a fact that the same stuff doesn't happen in France as in the other western societies? I'm genuinely curious if you remember what you're even arguing.

 

[mama cass]

I'm genuinely curious if you remember what you're even arguing.

see, it's this - your typical mean attitude - this is why our conversations inevitably turn out toxic

 

[LuckyNumber7]

see, it's this - your typical mean attitude - this is why our conversations inevitably turn out toxic

It was a genuine question. It wasn't mean, I legitimately think you've lost track of something from days ago, and likely because I took several days to respond.

 

[mama cass]

It was a genuine question. It wasn't mean, I legitimately think you've lost track of something from days ago, and likely because I took several days to respond.

what are you talking about? i have answered all your posts directed at me in depth.

and the discussion evolved to cover many aspects, notably you attempting to call me out on the student aspect, to which i gave you a detailed reply.

now, i'm not going to waste my time with you arguing about arguing.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

what are you talking about? i have answered all your posts directed at me in depth.

and the discussion evolved to cover many aspects, notably you attempting to call me out on the student aspect, to which i gave you a detailed reply.

now, i'm not going to waste my time with you arguing about arguing.

We were talking about french society. You claimed it simply valued more progressive thinking than its counterparts. Mind you, we are in a thread about sexual harassment. Feminism is a strong origin of our discussion, but that stemmed into prejudices and overall progressive society. I still maintain that they're not nearly as different as you make them sound, and certainly France is not the shining star you're portraying it as. You seem to disagree.

 

[mama cass]

We were talking about french society. You claimed it simply valued more progressive thinking than its counterparts. Mind you, we are in a thread about sexual harassment. Feminism is a strong origin of our discussion, but that stemmed into prejudices and overall progressive society. I still maintain that they're not nearly as different as you make them sound, and certainly France is not the shining star you're portraying it as. You seem to disagree.

my "what are you talking about?" was not a literal question.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

my "what are you talking about?" was not a literal question.

Oh. When I asked "what are you doing" earlier, that was literal. For calling me defensive (I often am), you seem to have taken a lot of this conversation the wrong way.

 

[mama cass]

Oh. When I asked "what are you doing" earlier, that was literal. For calling me defensive (I often am), you seem to have taken a lot of this conversation the wrong way.

see above.

 

[IWasBored]

So much arguing in here. I thought this was supposed to be an echo chamber.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So much arguing in here. I thought this was supposed to be an echo chamber.

This is the point where Nick tells you that, legally speaking, there is no such thing as an echo chamber.