So much I love about this story.
-
So much I love about this story.
Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....
When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio
A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
@chu Very much a "dudes who frequent airports" thing, especially.
-
So much I love about this story.
Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....
When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio
A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
@chu an excellent result methinks!
-
@chu Sounds like some dude at the SRAA does a lot of "harmless flirting".
@squared99 @chu Article mentions a work trip. Those are the ones I was abused on.
-
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
@KerryMitchell @chu lol, you're not supposed to mad at HR for covering up the abuse, the ones who got offended as you pointed out, the target of this ad - you're supposed to make it about men and be gendered about it - the lawsuit CLEARLY is men protecting their right to sexually harass people, that's what the article says, that's what they said and are quoted saying - that's why men sued to take it down. Men are agains this - haven't you been TOLD to believe this yet?? Aren't you raping now?
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
@KerryMitchell @chu HR famously protects companies over employees, especially when it’s women complaining about harassment.
This is only “aggressive” to those who are defending sexual harassment.
-
So much I love about this story.
Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....
When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio
A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
@chu To "tone it down"... what part of the ad is supposed to be offensive to anyone?! Like wtf. That's just peak "shut your mouth, woman" mentality by the airport.
So glad the court ruled in her favor. -
@KerryMitchell @chu HR famously protects companies over employees, especially when it’s women complaining about harassment.
This is only “aggressive” to those who are defending sexual harassment.
@CStamp @chu Yes, I agree. The ad copy doesn’t expressly say “flirting = harassment” it says that if HR is dismissive of your harassment complaint you should call Thomas, a lawyer.
Somebody at the authority took exception to the message, but their choice was to make the argument that the ad goes too far in equating flirting with harassment, and to suggest that the message was disparaging without specifically identifying the disparaged party.
-
@CStamp @chu Yes, I agree. The ad copy doesn’t expressly say “flirting = harassment” it says that if HR is dismissive of your harassment complaint you should call Thomas, a lawyer.
Somebody at the authority took exception to the message, but their choice was to make the argument that the ad goes too far in equating flirting with harassment, and to suggest that the message was disparaging without specifically identifying the disparaged party.
Probably some dude in HR that got this ad killed. Or some dude who likes to harass women
-
Probably some dude in HR that got this ad killed. Or some dude who likes to harass women
@chu @KerryMitchell @CStamp Social media is cancer.
-
@chu To "tone it down"... what part of the ad is supposed to be offensive to anyone?! Like wtf. That's just peak "shut your mouth, woman" mentality by the airport.
So glad the court ruled in her favor.@celeste_42bit What's important is that if there is no gender war, we invent one.
-
@squared99 @chu Article mentions a work trip. Those are the ones I was abused on.
Sorry to hear.
-
Probably some dude in HR that got this ad killed. Or some dude who likes to harass women
@chu @CStamp I suspect that whoever reviews ads for the authority tried to apply “within the organization” standards to material for the general public.
It’s ingrained in organizations that HR will deal objectively with complaints, and even people who know it’s a fiction see it as a necessary one to protect the organization from legal actions.
Maybe a really sexist person would misinterpret the ad and feel called out for “harmless flirting” but it depends on a misreading.
-
Sorry to hear.
@chu @squared99 No, it's okay - it's allowed.
-
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
@KerryMitchell @chu It doesn't disparage "HR" either. The ad uses a verb tense that appears to refer to a single real case.
It isn't: When HR calls it .... we call it
It is: When HR called it ... we called it
-
@KerryMitchell @chu It doesn't disparage "HR" either. The ad uses a verb tense that appears to refer to a single real case.
It isn't: When HR calls it .... we call it
It is: When HR called it ... we called it
-
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@chu @CStamp I suspect that whoever reviews ads for the authority tried to apply “within the organization” standards to material for the general public.
It’s ingrained in organizations that HR will deal objectively with complaints, and even people who know it’s a fiction see it as a necessary one to protect the organization from legal actions.
Maybe a really sexist person would misinterpret the ad and feel called out for “harmless flirting” but it depends on a misreading.
@KerryMitchell @chu It is quite simple: Women are people. Treat women co-workers and employees as people, not possible conquests.
-
@jenzi @chu @KerryMitchell Social media has connected and given a voice to communities that in the past have been silenced. It has given some an opportunity to learn about the world from different points of view.
The cancer is in those using it for harm and self-aggrandizing.
-
@CStamp @chu Yes, I agree. The ad copy doesn’t expressly say “flirting = harassment” it says that if HR is dismissive of your harassment complaint you should call Thomas, a lawyer.
Somebody at the authority took exception to the message, but their choice was to make the argument that the ad goes too far in equating flirting with harassment, and to suggest that the message was disparaging without specifically identifying the disparaged party.
@KerryMitchell @chu A big problem is that when one goes to HR to complain about sexual harassment, that person gets labeled as “difficult.”
-
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
@KerryMitchell @chu HR exists to protect the company, unions exist to protect the workers.
If an abuser is on a higher place than the abused, HR will move heaven and earth to either bury the issue or gaslight the abused.
Only the laws will force them to behave.I love both the ad and the judge.
-
So much I love about this story.
Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....
When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio
A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
@chu Between the two employers mentioned in the article (airport, lawfirm), I can tell you which one I'd rather work for.
