456
AOC joins calls for Bob Menendez to resign from Senate over corruption charges
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
456 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19089 readers
5819 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's definitely a photo of him joke groping a sleeping woman.
No there isn't. Even in the photo it's clear he didn't touch her. You're misrepresenting it wildly. Was the photo crass, tasteless and juvenile. Absolutely. Did he actually grope or sexually assault anyone? There's more evidence that the woman accusing him did herself. Than there is that he did. At least be honest.
That's what I meant by "joke groping"? Actually groping someone isn't a joke, pretending to clearly is (like you said).
Also? That's not "crass, tasteless and juvenile" it's just harassment. If a man treated me that way I'd raise hell too.
How is it harassment? If someone takes a single photograph of you. In a place where you have no expectation of privacy. Regardless of what they may or may not be doing in it. What makes that in and of itself harassment?
And let me be clear here that the following in no way justifies or makes what Franken did acceptable. But there's literally videos and pictures of her physically touching and groping enlisted men on stage. Non-consensually at that. I do not find her a trustworthy or reliable narrator. At worst, franken's photo was a rather benign product of the overly toxic environment in which it was taken. The accuser guilty of much worse. Both were bad. One was worse. What Franken did however doesn't really qualify as harassment without wildly misrepresenting what it was. A single photo. Not a series. And without any demonstrable larger intent to demean or harass. Definitely inappropriate. As is a lot of what goes on with USO shows. But calling it harassment is a bit beyond the pale.
To my knowledge (IANAL) sexual harassment can, in fact, be a single isolated incident and it does not require intent. That would mean that pretending to grope a sleeping woman and photographing it, by itself and in isolation, is harassment. All the other accusations and the other nine women are suspicious, but that one incident is enough.
And the fact that people are still mad about this is sus as hell
Fellas? Just don't get photographed pretending to grope sleeping women. It's that easy.
Harassment absolutely requires intent. If it did not. You could claim harassment simply for walking out your front door. You are being recorded through images and video everywhere you go every moment you spend outside the confines of your house.
There has to be some sort of threshold beyond which something becomes harassment. But before which Things Are not. Otherwise everything is. And nothing is. So your claim is a bit non sequitur.
So when does something become harassment? Does an image simply existing of you constitute harassment? Whether or not you are aware of it. Are all images of you without your consent harassment? If someone took a picture that you didn't know about where someone who wasn't trying to look like they were doing something to you that they weren't. Is that harassment? Or let's say I was going to go full Kids in the Hall and take a forced perspective picture where I look like a giant using my fingers to crush your head. Is it harassment? By simple existence? Or would it become harassment if it was something that I was intentionally pushed and published against your consent. These are important questions to ask and answer. And this is why people are rightfully upset with what happened in franken's case. Let me be clear people like Anthony Weiner can go f*** himself. I think Justice was not done in his case. Only because I think more should have been done.
Let me also be clear here. I am absolutely 100% behind believe all women. Absolutely. Believe all hyperbolic hypocrites? No. And she has objectively been shown to be a hypocrite in this case. There is a reason it was never taken to court. It would have gotten laughed out. It was a picture not taken by franken. It was also a picture not published by Franken to my knowledge. A singular unique picture in which he never touched her. The whole trial was held in the court of public opinion by someone accusing and clearly in bad faith where Justice was never served. And let me be clear. If someone levied such heavy accusations at yourself with so little evidence. You and other people around you would rightly be pissed if your life and career were heavily impacted by it. Pretending that it's suspect that people are still unhappy about an injustice is not their problem. It's yours.
Wrong. As long as a "reasonable person" would consider the act intimidating, hostile, or abusive then it is harassment.
A "reasonable person" is, itself, a legal fiction that creates a standard for a judge or jury to weigh the behavior against.
Hostility literally is intent. Abuse is a product of such intent. Your argument makes no sense. You are literally claiming it's not defined by intent, just by intent. Again, you aren't being objective or honest.
Acts can be intimidating without intent; making sexual gestures to a person while they are sleeping and then taking a sexually compromising photo of an unconscious person is pretty fucking intimidating. Forcibly groping or kissing someone, too, is pretty fucking intimidating.