Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (15458)	11/21/1998 11:53:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Joan, While I enjoyed reading the article you cite, I think you may have missed my most basic point. Obviously when it comes to sexual harassment there are "degrees" of conduct that make litigating particular cases difficult. That's why we have judges and juries, to sift thru the mitigating circumstances and come to a fair decision. My point was that in the case of Clinton v. Jones, it seems that Mr. Clinton is getting a "pass" for lying under oath and obstruction of justice because of "subject matter". "Everybody lies about sex" is the refrain we have heard since the Lewinsky matter was made public. It has been this unrelenting refrain that has trivialized the idea of sexual harassment (if the polls are to be believed) to the point that we are willing to accept perjury if the perjury is so related. Now if we are indeed as a culture making a collective statement that "the law is an ass" when it comes to sexual harassment and therefore do not need to take seriously the oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, then I would say it is hypocrisy of the highest order to keep the current laws in effect. Again, we cannot have it both ways in this type of situation, either sexual harassment laws are valid and should be adhered to by the populace with the attendant penalties or we should rewrite the laws. You say that we have sufficient "kinks" in the law that it could take years to resolve. That may be true, but until those "kinks" are resolved, we have laws that are current and must be followed. If we do not hold Mr. Clinton to the same standard of compliance that we hold every other person involved in sexual harassment litigation, then we are in fact, making him a "special case", allowing him to circumvent the law. The Imperial Presidency reigns! bp