Comment by solidsnack9000 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by solidsnack9000 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Verbal intimidation is illegal because of the threat of harm, not because of the words.

Most crimes of words or planning are like that:

* Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”.

* Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing.

* Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth).

If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough.

Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job.

It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark.

> If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand...

This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?

I can understand the "it's not just one comment" angle, this kind of makes sense. Although, I'm still not convinced everything taken as sexual harassment is actually such, at least to the extent external government intervention is need.

With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. If there is intention, then it's a threat not verbal harassment.

My concern overall is that in the long term government and policy will be such that even so much as giving a simple compliment like, "I like your shirt", gets taken as punishable sexual harassment because someone find this sexually charged based on their own life experiences. My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.

> My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.

I fear that you are your own worst enemy here. This issue with harassment is not simply that there is something sexually charged about it, but that it is coercive and unwelcome. If we don't cultivate a culture -- corporate or otherwise -- that recognizes the distinction, then people will be very sensitive about sexuality in general.

Coercive comments being objectively wrong I can understand, but this is not the case 100% of the time. Obviously, coercing someone into sex is borderline immoral (Edit: I looked up the actual definition of coercing, and would actually say it's completely immoral, since it's unwanted), and if there is any threat or power behind it it's essentially blackmail.

What I don't understand is the unwelcome side of things. This is where my argument stems from. There are a lot of things that large portions of society feel are unwelcome that others feel are perfectly acceptable.

I look back at history, with all the "unwelcome" things we have arbitrarily restricted that resulted in oppression, and I feel like we are dangerously close to making the same mistakes. I mean there was a time when scientific discourse was very "unwelcome", and it didn't really benefit society much. Is saying, "Nice behind", the same as discussing mathematics, of course not. However, I still feel like we are closing in on a world where any expression of sexuality or attraction is disallowed. Which is think is a fine thing for a company to opt for, but not something we should be forcing.

If a company want's to ban all sexuality and non professional interaction, forcing their employees to wear uniforms and only talk directly about business, this is fine. However, if a company want's to have bikini/board shorts day, and allow consensual non coerced sex in the office, I also think this is fine. Because the simple truth is, not everybody find this unwelcome.

I'm hoping someday people will realize that none of this is objective, and there are actually perspectives dramatically different than their own. It's not just one person either, and there is a spectrum. We need to stop forcing our narrow perspectives on others, and learn to live and let live.

Edit:

If people feel they can't work at a place with a certain set of rules or philosophies then they need to simply move on. Should a Muslim coffee shop not be allowed to print verses on their cups because their American workers find it offensive and unwelcome?

> I'm hoping someday people will realize that none of this is objective, and there are actually perspectives dramatically different than their own.

The issue isn't whether this or that form of expression is okay with someone or okay with everyone. Again we look to things like self-defense and assault: these cases are not settled by the judge doing a poll to see if someone else would feel intimidated in a similar situation or if everyone (that they could find) would feel fine with it.

The issue is whether a reasonable person would find the conduct irritating, coercive or intimidating in the work place.

> ...I still feel like we are closing in on a world where any expression of sexuality or attraction is disallowed.

There is something to what you're saying here. Often people supplant the "reasonable person" standard with a "someone feels bad" standard -- I have seen it places I've worked, though not with regards to sexual harassment. But two wrongs do not make a right. The alternative to the "someone feels bad" standard is not the "yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man" standard.

> If people feel they can't work at a place with a certain set of rules or philosophies then they need to simply move on.

Why do you believe they "need" to move on? Why can't they stand and fight?

> With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention.

What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?

>What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?

I can't answer this question. That's my point, I have no clue why people care about what they perceive as sexual comments being directed at them. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Here is my thought process; if words can't hurt people physically, and I personally don't care about anything anyone says to me, there must be other people in this world that feel the same way. If this is the case than harassment must be on some level subjective, but a objective analysis of common reality would come to the same conclusion. It's a simple fact that what is sexual harassment in America today is not the same as it was 10 years ago, or the same as it is for a tribe in Africa, and I don't believe an objective definition of sexual harassment could ever exist. Therefore sexual harassment can not be universally banned in the workplace or otherwise. At least not in a non authoritarian rights based system.

Of course if all you care about is your perception and your subjective reality, and you believe it's ok to push this on people, my point is moot. I just lean towards basic rights and leaving the subjective stuff alone. It all depends on how you view reality. Personally I feel reality has a common base of extremely simple truths (science/normative ethics), and all else is essentially arbitrary. Is this right or wrong? I'm clearly not qualified to say, nor is anyone else.

Edit:

It's like trying to find an answer to the equation "2+2" if you don't know anything about math. Some people say the answer is between 14 and 20, some really strange people may say it's 2,000 and they know it for sure. Personally, I think it's best to say it's between negative and positive infinity and wait for additional information.

The question of the ethics of sexual harassment in the workplace is "2+2", and nobody on earth really know anything about "math" in this regard. So defer to the least restrictive answer.

Well, harassment is very threatening. The other person clearly wants something. They aren't being nice about it or even straightforward. They have usually been around longer and sit higher in the organization. If you don't give them what they want -- they might make your life hell until you quit. Or they might not. Hard to say. What do you do? This happens every week.

People who engage in harassment can be quite masterful about their use of language. It's rare indeed for them to actually come out and say, they want to trade favors. What is bothersome is not the language but the underlying goal.

What is intimidating is different in different countries but nearly every country has laws on the books against assault (in law: "a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"). Your standard for what can be made law in a "non authoritarian" system is awfully high. It's okay for different countries and cultures to have different laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com