How can a person defend against sexual harassment charges?
In the comments to the Bill O’Reilly post there was a discussion of whether sexual harassment lawsuits are often settled for big bucks even though the accused might be innocent. After all, why not fight the charges? Settling isn’t legally an admission of guilt, but it can be taken for such an admission, so why do it?
I mentioned that it’s sometimes easier, cheaper, and less damaging to the reputation to settle than to fight. In a court battle, the charges are fully aired and can gain even greater publicity, and legal defenses are both expensive and time-consuming. But another issue that I didn’t mention in the O’Reilly discussion was the difficulty of mounting a defense in a “he-said/she said” dispute.
It’s only in rare cases that either party has a recording of the event. It’s only rarely that there’s any record of the interactions in question, or witnesses to them. Also, what we sometimes see is a situation in which other women (it’s usually women accusing a man) come out of the woodwork to make similar accusations and mount similar lawsuits (or join in a group action). Are the later women telling the truth, emboldened by knowing there are others? Or are they simply jumping on the money-wagon? We don’t know, and we usually never know. In the court of public opinion, it often comes down to whether you tend to believe these stories or not, in general.
But what about the court of law? Sexual harassment is a civil rather than a criminal act, which means that the standard of proof is not reasonable doubt but a preponderance of the evidence. Take a look at the basic law about what constitutes sexual harassment, and you’ll see how broadly it is defined:
Sexual harassment at work is defined as:
unwelcome conduct
of a sexual nature or directed toward the victim’s gender
that creates a hostile or offensive work environment and/or
includes an adverse job action against the victim.
It’s that last bit that seems to afford some protection for the accused against frivolous or fabricated suits. If there’s no adverse action, then the plaintiff can’t win, right? Problem is that an incident of harassment can be fabricated out of revenge, ex post facto, by someone who has experienced an adverse job action that occurs for other reasons. For example, a person fails to be promoted, and the company or the boss says it’s for reason A, but the person says it’s because the boss had made advances that the person had refused. Who’s to know which it is?
Here’s a jaw-dropper:
Consent is not necessarily a defense to sexual harassment, as it may be for sexual assault. Given the power dynamics that often operate between victim and harasser, a victim may not resist or may even consent to sexual conduct out of fear of job loss or other repercussions if he or she objects. In recognition of this reality, sexual harassment may occur even if a victim consents.
I’m not trying to say that most harassment charges are fabricated. I’m assuming that many are very real, although I have no idea what percentage of the whole they represent. But there’s no question that these laws create a huge opening for fabrications, and that once such charges are made they could be difficult even for the innocent to defend against.
SH is “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature or directed toward the victim’s gender that creates a hostile or offensive work environment.”
That is very, very one-sided and one-size-fits-all.
A) Unwelcome conduct is unwelcomed by whom? Why, by the female, 99.9999% of the time.
B) Directed against the victim’s (sic) gender. As in, “Women have no place in the Special Forces”? Or, “All men are pigs”, a frequent feminist plaint that has yet to be prosecuted.
C) That creates a(n)…offensive work environment. Offensive in the eyes of whom? Why, the victim. V-I-C-T-I-M.
And as to hostile, why are workers to be always pleasant despite non-approval of the victim’s (sic) work deficiencies?
D) What actual damage or injury occurs in these cases? None; just pouty females.
The whole thing could have come out of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”- the knights who say ni!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UbtcmjfKa8
It is damn near impossible to defend against such charges. In O’Reilly’s case, a massive anti-Fox campaign would have destroyed his cachet, so settlements were legal bribes. The NYT made this an issue well after the fact, advertisers rapidly dropped sponsorship, Fox had no alternative except to let him go. Right & Wrong had nothing to do with it.
The times we live in.
My definition of conduct may differ from yours. All is relative as we slouch toward Gomorrah.
I deliberately pronounce the word as “harASSment”, accent on 2nd syllable..
I don’t think who comments here (other than me) has any actual experience with biglaw litigation (or, so far as I know, big corporation HR). Big corporations don’t normally make personnel decisions without lots of documentation, and it’s hard to prove that said documentation was a subterfuge concealing the “real” reason for the decision. Meanwhile, the lawyers can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on discovery to review the plaintiff’s entire employment history. The plaintiff must either front the money for her side or persuade her lawyers to work on contingency, which they won’t do unless it’s a strong case.
Neo, why do you think the legal system is so bad at discovering the truth, or, in truly ambiguous, irresolvable situations, letting the chips lie where they fell? I think the legal system is pretty good at those things.
y81:
The legal system isn’t particularly good with “he-said/she-said” situations. These occur regularly in the areas I’m most familiar with, in family law (child custody and child sexual abuse and domestic abuse allegations), and it’s a complete mess.
Also, the standard of proof is less in civil cases than in criminal ones. These are civil cases we’re talking about with sexual harassment.
That doesn’t mean that justice is never done. But I think it’s an area where it’s more difficult to determine the truth. I’ve done some research in the field, and that’s part of what informs my opinion.
Women never feel harassed by attractive men.
The most bitter women I ever ran across — were bitter because I wasn’t coming on to them.
So a fair amount of today’s harassment suits arise from ‘sexual neglect.’
I’ve been on the receiving end… more than once.
The lefties think they have destroyed Bill O’Reilly? No, they have just made him a martyr, embodiment of someone getting destroyed with weaponized Sexual Harassment accusations by the fascist left for being their harshest critic. The only thing that got destroyed is the credibility of future legitmate sexual harassment victims because now there is clear apparent pattern of the left utilizing sexual harassment accusations as a weapon against famous conservatives (Sean Hannity) there are now reasonable doubts to be skeptical of all charges. I don’t necessary believe O’Reilly or Hannity are saints that they can never do bad things, I just don’t think they are idiots, giving how many enemies they have in the business, it is very hard for me to believe they could be this careless.
sexual harassment victims because now there is clear apparent pattern of the left utilizing sexual harassment accusations as a weapon against famous conservatives (Sean Hannity) there are now reasonable doubts to be skeptical of all charges. I don’t necessary believe O’Reilly or Hannity are saints that they can never do bad things, I just don’t think they are idiots, giving how many enemies they have in the business, it is very hard for me to believe they could be this careless.
testing
ABC covered the O’Reilly departure, labeling it a “firing”, even though O’Reilly resigned. They featured one of O’Reilly’s accusers. You KNOW they sought and tried to feature the woman with the very worst accusation they could get to go on camera. It was a black woman who said that O’Reilly insulted and harassed her when in passing he reportedly said, “Looking good, hot chocolate”. BTW, that’s all he said as he walked by.
So, a passing compliment is now ‘harassment’.
neo, family situations are very different from corporate situations. Large corporations maintain extensive files, they have bureaucracies to monitor their employees’ behavior, they have established procedures for complaints and grievances, very few activities are conducted in private, there are no children involved, and more generally there are no third parties whose interests are at stake, and there almost never any non-pecuniary issues motivating anyone. All very different from family law, of which I know nothing (most biglaw firms consider it seedy and stay away). It wouldn’t surprise me if the law does much better with corporate situations than with family ones.
Hmmm. Surprised you consider that last one a jaw dropper. Consider Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Power figures and any unequal footing is just that. Professor -student relationships are viewed in this way. Its interesting how liberals like to give a free pass to folks they like who fit that bill. The David Letterman Affair comes to mind. For liberals, mere consent is good enough if you fall in their favor. Who can forget Whoopi Goldberg’s defense of Roma Polanski. “It wasn’t rape-rape.”
Just to give some examples of how a person can defend against sexual harassment allegations, start by reviewing the plaintiff’s personnel file. Does she have bad reviews from a number of people? That would tend to refute any claim that she was given bad reviews because she spurned the sexual advances of a particular person. Did the plaintiff make contemporaneous complaints to the HR department, as directed by the employment manual? If not, that would undercut her claim (and certainly reduce the employer’s liability, which in turn will reduce the desire of any lawyer to handle her case). Does an investigation reveal other people who complain about the alleged harasser’s behavior? If not, that would undercut the plaintiff’s claim. Etc. None of these avenues of investigation has any real analogue in a family context.
And to answer neo’s question, how can a person defend against sexual harassment charges (in a corporate context)? Examine the plaintiff’s personnel file. Does she have negative reviews from people other than the alleged harasser? That would undercut her claim that the bad review was retaliation for spurning the harasser’s advances. Did the plaintiff complain contemporaneously to the appropriate member of the HR or legal staff? If not, that would undercut her claim, and would certainly reduce the corporation’s liability, which in turn will make a lawyer less willing to take the plaintiff’s case. Do the plaintiff’s co-workers confirm her claim that the alleged harasser made inappropriate comments? If not, that would undercut her claim. Etc. None of these avenues of defense has any real analogue in a domestic situation.
Testing said testing
“It is damn near impossible to defend against such charges.” – Frog
Interesting.
So, by implication, you “KNOW” that O’Reilly is the victim here?
.
“so settlements were legal bribes. … Fox had no alternative except to let him go”
How many settlements / bribes would be “too many”?
Does it take 100 to make YOU wonder?
It only took the advertisers a few, but they HAD stuck with O’Reilly through the first ones. Though, not sure that the entire number and amounts were much known before the NYT piece.
.
We suspect the NYT, but we cannot dispute the facts they raised (though we could dispute their opinions on the cases).
We’d like to back O’Reilly, but there seems enough there to suggest some possible culpability.
Is it to the legal definition, who knows, without more info (and that is what courts are for). If I understand it correctly, O’Reilly’s settlements effectively shut the door on knowing any more about those cases.
Are the courts so biased that O’Reilly and FOX are helpless, and simply must pay up those “bribes”? IDK.
Seems to me that if we think so, we’ve adopted something of the BLM platform, as they very much think they are similarly helpless, too, and on a wider scale.
Can we all be right about such a rigged system?
.
“The plaintiff must either front the money for her side or persuade her lawyers to work on contingency, which they won’t do unless it’s a strong case.” – y81
Seems like a significant hurdle, especially vs O’Reilly and FOX’s resources.
But, maybe some deep pocketed dems might anonymously oblige? It’s not unheard of – Peter Thiel and Gawker. We can suspect that possibility, though how real it would be, IDK.
Are the laws “too easy”?
We used to live in an era where it was all but impossible to bring cases like this forward.
Has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
Are the courts, as a whole, now behaving like some college campuses seem to be on sexual harassment cases, guilty until proven innocent? IDK.
.
What I do observe is that we seem to be in a culture of victimhood, and it seems something a great many are trying to one up the other on, with extended hyperbole.
Very difficult to pry away the blue vs red team sport references and motivations vs the real arguments grounded in the facts.
There is an “automaticness” that we are supposed to be on one side or the other, even if it is not so clear that side is so innocent, nor clear that side is so guilty.
Could it simply be that the executives at FOX know enough of the facts (that we are not privy to) to honestly make the call they did, and that there was enough in the public forum for the advertisers to think the risk of continued “support” (after having been with FOX/O’Reilly through past allegations) not worth the possible downside?
From a woman’s perspective, it all depends on who is doing the talking. Not a matter of attractiveness, but rather my level of joking around/friendliness with someone.
I once got mildly offended by a sexist comment made by someone a little higher up in the org. But then I realized if I switched him out with someone who I joked around with a lot, it would have passed by unnoticed. He had assumed a level of friendliness that didn’t really exist and it rubbed me the wrong way.
That was decades ago, and I decided then to give people the benefit of the doubt, and walk around less offended even when given cause.
Y81 is a self proclaimed expert, so it would be foolish to dispute what he says. If I understand, he is asserting that any time a corporation, or celebrity settles a claim it is an admission of guilt. Any time someone is “let go” or resigns under suspicion, it is an admission of guilt. And that is because corporate legal and HR departments are infallible.
I have no experience in law and, thankfully, limited experience within corporations; but, my perception differs. My perception is that they will throw anyone to the wolves if they perceive the person might, might in any way, become a liability; or, in media oriented corporations, if advertising dollars are threatened. I think of most Corporations as cowardly; and suspect that their legal counsel contribute significantly to this maladious state.
I personally don’t know enough about the allegations against Ailes or O’Reilly, or about their personal characters, to judge. Still, there is one lesson that any observer can take from all of this. Society is now a minefield; and sexual harassment issues are one manifestation. VP Pence, despite the scoffs from the Left, is wise; and his precautions will become more common. Then, we may wonder why the birth rate plummets, he opined TIC.
sorry, neo please delete my duplicated message if there is a way for you do do so, there were glitches that prevented my post from showing up the first time I hit the “submit comment” button so being an idiot and the first rule of online messaging I hit the button again. It looks silly, embarrassing and aesthetically ruining the elegant layout of the message board.
personal experience, I have seen a co-worker terminated for fat shaming another female colleague, what he did was offering to gift the lady a pack of diet weight loss tea bags he brought back from his vacation in Asia. The lady wasn’t the person filing the complaint it was the supervisor who saw the incident decided it was harassment and reported to the personnel department that got my co-worker fired, he was one of the nicest man I have met and he taught me a lot, so stop telling me that there is no reverse discrimination, I have witnessed that myself, that was my red-pilled experience.
The sexual harassment charges against O’Reilly were old news. Which news was revived by Media Matters and the NYTs. It was Media Matters (a Soros funded group) that revved up the campaign to get advertisers to withdraw their ads from the show. Why would advertisers respond to this kind of smear campaign? It doesn’t make sense to me. Did anyone outside of the Fox inner circle and Media Matters know anything about this before the sudden announcement that O’Reilly was fired while on vacation in Italy? Why would the advertisers take such old settlements as proof they should quit advertising on the highest rated cable news show in the country? None of it makes a lot of sense to me. Unless the Murdoch sons were looking for away to get rid of O’Reilly.
The NYTs and Media Matters would not press for a boycott of donors to the Clinton Global Initiative because the principal male is a serial sexual harasser. No way. The politics of personal destruction only works one way. Unless the right fights back.
J.J.:
I think the Murdoch fils were looking for an excuse to get rid of him.
To this day — and I’m 70 — I will not go out to lunch or dinner with a woman, other than my wife, alone. Way, way too much risk. Mike Pence is 100% correct. When I took my daughter to lunch a few years ago, I got so many knowing and nasty looks, each table we walked by I said, “She really is my daughter!”
As someone pointed out — Victor Davis Hanson? Camille Paglia? You, Neo? — are women better off now that there are no wolf-whistles or flirtatious compliments, but men are willing to abandon women to their fate when separated out by a mass killer (happened in Quebec some years ago), than they were when men said “Hubba-hubba, what a hot tomato,” but willingly gave up their places in the lifeboats of the Titanic for the women and children?
Hey! I’m huxley again. Still gonna change my email.
I’ve heard the Murdoch boys want to have lunch with the cool kids.
If y81 and BigMaq would read the definition of SH as provided by Neo, they might just possibly modify their views.
BigMaq has the view that where there’s smoke there is almost always fire, ignoring the politicolegal climate we live in that encourages targets to be placed on the backs of the Deplorable High Rollers.
y81 believes the high regulatory approach of large corporations with large HR depts, the recording and retaining of minutiae, will keep the innocent from being charged. Which is nonsense. A monied target is needed, plus a Gloria Alldred and maximum media attention, that is all. Ka-ching, here comes the money. Didn’t Hillary call it the “politics of personal destruction”? It’s the Alinsky approach.
“I think the Murdoch fils were looking for an excuse to get rid of him.” – Neo
Perhaps.
Also could be true that they didn’t see a way past the shedding of advertisers, even if they hung tough and defended O’Reilly (and themselves).
By my understanding, O’Reilly had recently signed a new contract extension.
Makes no sense to be gunning for O’Reilly, looking for an “excuse”, so soon afterwards, and give up on the potential revenue, if they could just jump so successfully into defense mode.
Hi Neo,
Like you and all other reasonable people, I have no problem at all with anti-sexual harassment laws expanding from covering cases where employers overtly demand sexual favours as a condition of continued employment to also cover those cases where the threat to employment goes unstated but is yet rightly understood to be just as real should the employee/subordinate refuse to cooperate – as very real power imbalances do exist in the workplace.
The problem I have is in what you have correctly flagged as being the broadened definition of sexual harassment to cover acts and omissions that render a workplace “hostile”, “offensive” or “unsympathetic”.
My problem is in just how widely the net has been cast here and in the US when defining the kinds of behaviour that go to making a workplace “hostile or offensive”.
I had experience in trying to set the line both in private practice and in the army when I was legal officer to some formations to which I was posted or sent.
My worry then, as it is now, was that so very often one-off words or acts that really were nothing more than gauche and tactless issuings from socially inept people, (immature to be sure but without any intention to obtain sexual gratification or to belittle subordinates), and which any reasonably self-confident person – with a properly formed adult’s perspective – would have just shrugged off as faux pas, are called in as a formal complaint to HR or the legal officer with alacrity.
At its fringes – that is, where we are dealing with allegations not of direct or reasonably obvious importuning – but with allegations of sexual harassment flowing from an allegedly “hostile” workplace it gets very messy and very ugly indeed.
Just a week or so ago I witnessed a regrettable example of what plays out when we allow people to point the finger of harassment based on mere subjective feelings and perceptions. It was one of the most stark examples of hypocrisy I have ever witnessed.
My gym suddenly went very quiet. The cause, I soon discerned, was Mario, the homeless fellow who lives in bushland next to the gym.
Mario is usually a bit tipsy and talks quietly to himself a lot but is otherwise unobjectionable. He is not a member but can usually be viewed through the glass walls sitting outside and smoking all day.
Anyway, it was obvious to anyone with eyes that Mario was sporting a new pair of very sparkly, very tight lycra shorts and must have wanted to work out. He had even abandoned his ever-present cigarette.
Taking advantage of the momentary absence of the receptionist Mario had made his move to a fitter life by sneaking in – wearing said flash new sparkly and very tight shorts.
As Mario contemplated the unfamiliar surroundings and his first step on the road to a new fit life, several of the women members rushed from the other side of the gym to the manager to loudly complain that Mario must be banished immediately because, they said, or words to the effect:
“just look at his pants. They’re so tight. It’s disgusting. Get rid of him now – his shorts are triggering us. We can see his junk and feel offended as women. We are being sexually harassed by his display”.
I felt very sorry for Mario because he had even washed his face and discarded his smoke in order to enter and better fit in and he had seemed so inordinately proud of the figure he cut in his striking, sparkly new shorts.
Mario was indeed evicted – not because of his shorts, I’m glad to say, but because he wasn’t a financial member in good standing.
The point of the story is that each of the complaining women was, herself, wearing obscenely tight lycra tights. So tight that the leader is known by the men as “the cervix”. And for very good reason. Of course, it would never enter her brainless head that men might be offended by her own exhibitionism.
On a positive note, there is a famous and very amusing SNL sketch on how men may avoid sexual harassment complaints in the office.
One male employee is rather average looking and is respectful when he asks a female colleague out. She immediately phones HR to lodge an harassment complaint. The other male employee is the handsome football player, Tom Brady.
Tom also invites the lady out whilst shuffling around in just his underpants and even states that she should bring a girlfriend along with her for fun and games in the bedroom. His offer is readily accepted.
The film ends by summarising its advice to men in order to avoid harassment complaints:
“Be handsome. Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxuUkYiaUc8
Regards.
Last two comments are not by the real huxley.
Accept no substitutes.
Neo: “I think the Murdoch fils were looking for an excuse to get rid of him.”
That’s the only thing that computes for me in this debacle.
I’m very thankful my life in the airline world was completed before sexual harassment became what it has. I always tried to keep everything professional, but you never knew what to expect. There were misunderstandings and occasionally bad feelings. But everything used to get hammered out at the domicile level. The disputing parties had their say, apologies were made, or days off without pay were levied, and the job went on. The idea of ruining someone over a joke, a look, an unthoughtful remark, or even an unwanted pass was not on the table. People of opposite sexes make mistakes and have misunderstandings. If they didn’t, the divorce rate would be much lower.
I would hate to go to work and have to worry about every look, every gesture, and every word that could be misinterpreted or turned into a federal case. With the tactics that are being used by the progs, even being for Trump or expressing conservative views is reason to ruin you. Bad times.
Adrian Day is correct.
Julia Says:
April 24th, 2017 at 7:27 pm
From a woman’s perspective, it all depends on who is doing the talking. Not a matter of attractiveness, but rather my level of joking around/friendliness with someone.
…That was decades ago, and I decided then to give people the benefit of the doubt, and walk around less offended even when given cause.
* * *
Clearly you are not the model for Obama’s Julia!
http://www.redstate.com/diary/hanoverhenry/2012/05/04/obama-website-life-of-julia-cradle-to-grave-socialism-for-america/
In any unavoidable one-on-one interactions with female coworkers, my suggestion is that men now wear body cams.
About twenty-five years ago, I worked with a woman who carried sexual harassment to the edge of mental illness. I asked her to stop. When she didn’t, I started saving her notes and email, as well email from me that clearly stated my request to stop contacting me.
Her notes and email amounted to more than twenty documents; most were both obsessive and salacious. I then showed the documents to my supervisor, who was aghast, but not sure what to do. She made an appointment, for both of us, with someone in HR. After the HR person read the notes and email, she was shocked. She said that she was ready to talk to us about the kind of ordinary disagreements that are common among colleagues, but that the notes and emails were way beyond that. They constituted not only obvious sexual harassment, but also mental illness. Unfortunately, since my colleague seemed to be mentally ill, all that could be done was to advise her that she should seek treatment or counseling. They couldn’t force her to do so, and they definitely couldn’t fire her. I pointed out that I’d be fired in two seconds if I’d done anything even remotely like that. The room got very quiet.
The lunatic was told to get some counseling. Thankfully the sexual harassment stopped, but she continued to send me email that she obviously considered friendly. Again, I asked her to stop. She didn’t. I again went to HR. They said that the recent email didn’t constitute sexual harassment.
I didn’t know what to do, so I talked to a few friends about it. I was looking for advice, but didn’t get anything helpful. At least one of these friends must have told someone else, because I started getting email from people I’d never even heard of. Each of the senders was male. Each of them had a story of being sexually harassed by a female. In every case, the women evaded any consequences for their harassment. In every case, the women accused of harassment made life difficult for the men who complained. Sometimes men’s careers were ruined. I was repeatedly advised to get another job, before the situation blew up in my face. I moved about a thousand miles away, but the lunatic found my address online, and sent me a few emails. Thankfully, she then stopped.
I don’t know what it’s like in the corporate world, but this is what it’s like in universities. Feminism is sacred dogma. Sexual harassment is both doctrine and tool. Women are always believed. Men are always guilty. HR departments are dominated by women.
Needless to say, I think sexual harassment laws need to be reformed, if not repealed.
The whole definition is subjective, starting with “unwelcome”. If you tell a joke and I laugh, we’re cool; if I don’t laugh you’ve got a problem.
Worse, in a case like this one, I don’t even have to convince the powers that be of anything. I just have to make some sponsors think that I MIGHT be telling the truth, which leads to them withholding sponsorship of the show.
No sponsors = no show, and no show = you lose your job. There is literally NO standard of proof required.
Best strategy is to convince all women in your work environment that you are a homosexual. You’ll get a lot of worry-free female companionship, which is nice. Bonus is that maybe a gay guy will hit on you and you’ll have your own harassment suit. Hello early retirement!!
Lurch:
I have a better strategy, wear a turban, grow a bread and pretend to be a muslim, you would be at top of the social justice food chain that no one can accuse you of anything, or you can just cry racism to counter any charges.
As a man in nursing, I have been told,quite nonchalantly, that men are “just not as clean as women.” I have been told that I “just do not know my own strength”. That is absurd, but I am sure that there are people who believe it. More recently, I worked a home care case with another nurse, two twins, two nurses. I am far from svelte, but this woman was at least half-again my weight, and she was handsy. If I had complained, the first response would have been uproarious laughter. The patients lived about a mile from my son and his family, and rather than accept a ride home from Babar’s mother, I ‘phoned him to pick me up. He knows, of course, that I have always been faithful to his mother, and had a good laugh when I said that, if were to begin looking for extracurricular activity, it would not be with someone so huge, have-to-tie-a-board-to-my-butt-to-keep-from-falling-in huge. At least we could laugh about it. However, open rejection would have been very dangerous to me. Hell hath no fury and all that. Every time she touched me I jumped, as if startled, until she finally relented. The door ought to swing both ways, but it does not, not at all.
Oddly enough, the homosexuals I have known at work have been quite honorable. There have been one or two hints dropped, and, when they were not picked up, nothing more was said. In other, non-work settings, the aggressive come-ons have been much more overt, persistent, and obnoxious, but never at work.
A point that was missed is that in many states it is illegal to record conversations without notifying everyone. Even if one has the foresight or the behavior is repetitive, the maker of a secret recording can be prosecuted. And I think it is criminal and not civil, like the harassment is.
Declaration of Transgenderism. Either homosexual or crossover will do. Bisexual will probably still get you condemned. Heterosexual will guarantee a baby trial for leverage, money, or spite.
No, not Huxley: Michael Adams, at 16:25 on the 25th. Sorry, Huxley. Not my fault!
One hint about the ongoing blog glitch:
I’ve discovered that if you force a cache refresh by pressing CTL + F5, you can usually make the blog display the comments and the posts properly. Let me know if you see the most recent posts when you do that.
All you computer experts or semi-experts out there, do you have any advice for fixing things, based on this new information? I’m still getting professionals to help, but they’re taking longer than I’d like.