Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mrknowitall who wrote (5443)	9/26/1998 8:52:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) of 67261

I have said umpteen times that I don't think plaintiffs in sexual harassment lawsuits ought to be permitted to do a full rummage through a defendant's prior consensual sexual history. Questioning of prior instances of harassment, when there is some predicate indicating unwanted, coercive behavior is something else. Naturally, if I were representing a client I would take full advantage of whatever latitude I was allowed under the existing rules and determinations by the judge. That says nothing about how the rules should be reformed. An analog to the rape shield laws should be enacted. I'm not holding my breath, however. I had thought there could be some agitation in that direction as a result of the excesses the Jones case has illustrated, but no one seems to be focusing on this issue. Men tend to not want to make too much noise defending the legal rights of those accused of harassment (even when they realize how easy it is to be accused of such things). Keeping quiet seems individually wiser. And feminists aren't too motivated in that direction either. Doug

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next