Woman says Franken groped, kissed her without consent in 2006

[Patroklos]

Simon said sexual harassment, not assault. I think it's easier to come up with levels if we are talking about verbal offenses. For instance I can come up with the distiction between committed in an official capacity vice overheard while you attended a ball game. Of course what you said matters too. And whether there were attributable consequences to someone based on what was said.

[Ralin]

Simon said sexual harassment, not assault.

He also said 'along these lines,' and sexual assault is an umbrella term that blends with sexual harassment (see Louis CK) and can be purely verbal depending on who's using it and how. So I think the point stands.

But yes, those are all valid distinctions.

[Gandalf]

The GOP has loathed Frankin from the moment he took office and will use this to crucify him.

Good. One less vile person in the legislature. Is this not a win for America?

[Broomstick]

Or do you think there are no penalties between "nothing" and "fired from the job"?

No, I don't think there are, because I don't consider an apology to be a consequence.

Yes, there are. The US Senate has a disciplinary process that has been in place for centuries. Granted the last time it resulted in forcible removal of a senator was the 19th Century, but there is a process in place and it should be used.

Franken losing his job is a distinct possibility, and if she doesn't want that to happen, coming out and expecting a public apology to be the limit of the "damage" is an extreme lack of foresight.

Not everyone is equally intelligent or capable of foresight. I don't know why that possibility - that she had such a lack - would be surprising to you.

Do you really think the Republicans are going to let this slide? This is a gift.

The problem is that the Republicans will try to let THEIR guys slide.

You are truly fucked up if you think a forced kiss - unpleasant as it is - is on the same level as rape. Newsflash: it's not. It's disgusting, humiliating, and gross but a forced kiss is not rape. Equating the two is just another example of having no sense of proportion or degree of wrong/criminality.

Neither I, nor anyone else, has said anything approaching this.

Yes, you did. You yourself called that forced kiss a "mouth rape". It right upthread for anyone to see.

Franken doesn't get to avoid his level of punishment just because somone else can't fully realize theirs due to circumstances nobody has the power to change.

I want a punishment appropriate to the level of offense, not greater than what any other guilty party normally receives. He should not receive a harsher than normal consequence regardless of whether or not other offenders are being properly punished or not.

And yes, you are making excuses for him with all you whataboutisms. He physically assaulted a woman twice, and was so deranged and uncaring about it he took a trophy picture, and then included the standard exceptions in his Apology, and you are here defending his job as a trusted progressive lawmaker who in true Harvey fashion has been making bank as a womens advocate! What else would you call it?

I call it examining the evidence.

First of all, if you look at sources other than Trump's Twitter feed, for the photo Franken did not actually touch her. The photographer has stated that it was a simulated groping, no actual contact took place. That is still skeevy, but it is NOT an "assault". If this was not a big deal to Franken - which it may not have been, because two different people can have a markedly different reaction to the same situation - then he probably didn't remember the incident well. On the other hand, it was a huge deal to the woman, she's going to remember it more vividly. Add in that humans are notoriously poor eyewitnesses and have crap memories and neither party here has to be lying for there to be two separate accounts of the same incident.

And you continually seem to imply I think Franken should get off scot free - I do not. I do think that public admission of wrong doing (which he has done) and an apology to his victim (which he has done) are a start, and an investigation to see if there is anything further along with any discipline that comes out of it is entirely appropriate. I just don't think this rises to a level of crime that should unseat a US Senator, especially as the offense pre-dated his political career.

Given that all this occurred in 2006, nine years ago, and many statutes of limitations are 7 years, even if there was something criminal found it may be just as impossible to prosecute Franken as Roy Moore's rape of teenagers.

[Broomstick]

Fuck him. Sexual assault is sexual assault and I don't give a damn about how liberal his politics are or how much worse the Republicans are. Being morally superior to Satan does not warrant a defense. If the Senate has some sort of mechanism for kicking him out over shit like this than by all means use it, otherwise vote him out at the next opportunity and replace him with someone we don't know pulls this sort of crap. If the GOP considers this a gift then they're welcome to it.

Oh, for fuck's sake, is this yet another case of men trying one-up each other over moral outrage on the behalf of women? If so, I want to know where all you assholes have been over the past decades when this shit was actually occurring. Why didn't you call it out THEN? One reason this shit has been going on since forever is because other men see this happening and either they join in the laughing or shrug, say it's none of their business, and walk off. Oh, but years later there's suddenly a contest to punished the transgressor and screaming moral outrage... where was that when it mattered?

I don't think men should sit in judgement on other men for these things - make the review boards, the judges, the grand juries, the small juries, everyone involved women. Let the women sit in judgement and hand down sentence for a change... and if they decide to be lenient then men should shut the fuck up because I am heartily sick of men trying to drive the narrative in these matters. Except I know it won't happen that way. Men (general, as a group) simply can not stand to give up power.

Or is it some sort of moral Puritanism where there is no distinction between greater and lesser crimes? Roy Moore IS more evil than Al Franken, They are not deserving of the same punishment.

No, not all "sexual assaults" are the same. Any unwanted touching of a sexual nature is legally an assault, but if you can't tell the difference between having your ass pinched and being full on raped I just don't know what to do with you. While neither should happen one is far, far worse and trying to say they're both the same - "sexual assault is sexual assault" - shows a deplorable lack of a sense of proportion.

Yes, the Senate has a disciplinary process. It is unlikely that it will be used to remove Franken because, as skeevy, disgusting, and gross as his actions were they don't rise to the level of forcible removal. Roy Moore, on the other hand, has a much higher chance of that if he is elected because being a pedophile is pretty goddamned evil.

[Broomstick]

Does AL Franken have any other personal history that gives us reason to think he has poor impulse control that borders on clinical mental illness, or something like that?

Franken used to make a living by being an edgy comedian, a court jester if you will given the often political content of his SNL writing, and once burned an American flag on TV as a form of protest (granted, it was a very small flag, the sort used to ornament on cupcakes or fancy drinks, but you know how some Americans worship that particular icon). He used to make a living by being offensive. He was rewarded for being offensive.

Which doesn't make what he did OK - but since being voted into the Senate his behavior has, in fact, moderated and he's no longer the purposely offensive political comedian. He has, in fact, changed his conduct over the past decade. He is not the same person he was 10 years ago and that shouldn't surprise anymore because a lot of people change over that span of time.

It is just another one of the rich caste of dystopia's overlords.

Seems like he did what all fuckers who get high on power do - engage in sexual abuse. After all, what better way to prove your power than through sex? Freudomarxism FTW.

Er... do you somehow think he was a Senator when the groping/kissing occurred? He wasn't. He was predominantly a comedy writer and a somewhat known comedian when the offending behavior occurred. He was NOT one of the "rich caste of dystopia's overlords". He didn't get voted into the Senate until two years later, by a razor thin margin, in part because a lot of people thought his running for office was just yet another political comedy stunt on his part.

In other words, he was not one of the rich and powerful overlords at the time, and there's no indication that these actions had any part in his becoming one of the nation's lawmakers.

[Broomstick]

Honestly? I don't know. And in a lot of ways I'm not sure there's a good answer to that because it would mean creating a hierarchy of rape and sexual assault with one kind being the worst and one being meh, barely sexual assault at all and that's pretty fucking horrible.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Seriously, do you want a 15 year old boy stealing a pat on the ass of a young woman treated the same a felony rape, with multi-year incarcerations and a black mark against him for life?

Yes, there ARE different levels of offense. Get a grip. A forced kiss is not the same as being beaten and vaginally, orally, and anally raped by multiple offenders. A forced kiss is not as bad as raping a child. A forced kiss is a wrong, and deserves some sanction, but if you equate it with the more extreme forms of assault your moral scale is broken.

But right now we're collectively on a roll in terms of sexual assault and harassment being taken seriously and punished and I want that to continue because I know people who've been raped and molested and I'm sick of the fuckers who do it getting away with it. And he admitted to it. And I really doubt that whatever good his vote could do in the near future couldn't be done by whatever non-creep replaces him.

Franken is a champion of universal health coverage, of preserving and strengthening social security, cutting subsidies to the oil companies, and increasing money for students seeking higher education while cutting interest on student loans and changing the rules that essentially make them wage slavery now. Not only has he supported those positions, he has voted in line with them consistently, which is why the GOP so loathes him and is jumping at a chance to get rid of him. That sort of political position, consistently followed up, is not common in today's Congress. That doesn't, and shouldn't, excuse his wrong-doings but don't think that he's going to be easily replaced in an equivalent manner. If he's forced out it will be tragic for the Democrats, for liberals, and for the American people because the common man has few champions in the halls of power these days.

Franken also has a track record of making amends for past wrong-doings. His past corporation (used for supporting his career as a comedian) was found in violation of various tax things (which is really easy to do in the US) and he has paid all applicable back taxes and fines in full. So if he is found guilty of wrong-doing by his peers in the Senate I expect he will submit to their discipline.

[Broomstick]

The GOP has loathed Frankin from the moment he took office and will use this to crucify him.

Good. One less vile person in the legislature. Is this not a win for America?

I've yet to meet a politician who wasn't vile. It seems it's a job requirement.

I don't want politicians that are "nice" people, I want politicians who are effective at getting my agenda passed. Being a liberal in America, there aren't that many of them. It's pretty damn rare the people I vote for win.

Would removing Franken be a win for the US? No, it wouldn't. Because he's one of the few voices left in Congress who is for universal health coverage - you know, like what everybody else in the civilized world seems to have - preserving social security, and making advanced education available without the people getting it tied into multi-decade debt slavery. Yes, losing that voice would be a loss for the US.

Again - that does NOT mean I think his actions should be without consequences. But make it proportional to the offense, not a matter of making an example of him or throwing him under the bus in hopes of appeasing the GOP because you should know by now that nothing is going to appease the GOP as it is today short of a one-party take over and establishment of a fascist state. And they still won't be happy because it's in their nature to be unhappy.

Franken has been subjected to political attack by the GOP since his first announced a desire to run for the Senate. They've been trying to take him down from day one. Don't for one minute discount the political motivations at work here.

[Simon_Jester]

It is just another one of the rich caste of dystopia's overlords.

Seems like he did what all fuckers who get high on power do - engage in sexual abuse. After all, what better way to prove your power than through sex? Freudomarxism FTW.

Crush him.

Note the previous comments on how Franken was a comedian, one without extraordinary wealth. His parents were a salesman and a real estate agent. At the time of the offense he was in no sense an "overlord," and if he becomes an overlord automatically worthy of crushing after becoming elected, retroactively, because he was "high on power" when he did something in 2006 because of gaining power in 2008... Well honestly, you should be an anarchist and not a communist, because you'll never find anyone in any public office who is anything other than scum, even after a revolution.

Furthermore, you have no fucking idea who an American politician is, and can't be bothered to look up his biography before saying he should be crushed, and you say he should be crushed anyway, then you have no place commenting on American politics. Any more than a frothing John Bircher had a place commenting on Soviet politics. So go do something useful instead.

Being cynical, it's also possible it's entirely a firewall effort to discourage or. deflect accusation. Even darker it's a continuation of the power play, dominating someone physically and then smirking at the victims realization that you are her champion to the outside world, forcing them to forfeit there option to seek justice through real politic calculus mind fucking. Who knows, i don't have the time to dig into that speculation.

That sounds like the kind of thing that would be done by a serial, habitual offender. If we start seeing signs that Franken has been doing this kind of crap over and over throughout his adult life, that's a plausible motivation for advocating for women in the present day. If he hasn't been, then it isn't.

of curiosity, what's the lower bound on conduct prior to taking office, that should get a senator kicked out of the Senate?

What's the least bad thing he could have done along these lines, at that time, that you would feel sure he should be expelled from the Senate for? Or, if you don't feel that should be answered... what criteria do you use for deciding whether an act of sexual harassment merits expulsion from the Senate? Is it an absolute zero tolerance thing? Is there a line that has to be crossed?

Honestly? I don't know. And in a lot of ways I'm not sure there's a good answer to that because it would mean creating a hierarchy of rape and sexual assault with one kind being the worst and one being meh, barely sexual assault at all and that's pretty fucking horrible.

But right now we're collectively on a roll in terms of sexual assault and harassment being taken seriously and punished and I want that to continue because I know people who've been raped and molested and I'm sick of the fuckers who do it getting away with it. And he admitted to it. And I really doubt that whatever good his vote could do in the near future couldn't be done by whatever non-creep replaces him.

My concern here is that I don't want this momentum to die either.

You seem to be worried about the momentum dying out because of individual "fuckers who do it getting away with it," in the sense of not being utterly ruined by their bad actions.

I'm worried about something different.

Our end goal here is justice, a social order in which everyone is free from fear. Specifically in this instance, we're talking about eliminating the fears and tyrannies women have been putting up with from sleazy men. But in this campaign as in all others, you can't win the war if you don't know what you're fighting for. And if you don't talk about what you're fighting for, your soldiers will start deserting you.

One of the biggest limiting factors on feminism's recruitment, in my opinion, has historically been ambiguity about what it's fighting for. Is it fighting for equality, for "the radical notion that women are people?" Or is it fighting for the elimination or marginalization of men, for destroying male roles in society without creating new ones, for giving women the right to prod, poke, needle, and harm men without men having any way to respond? People who believe feminism is fighting for the first thing (including men who believe so) tend to sign up with feminist causes. People who believe feminism is fighting for the second thing (including women who believe so) tend not to.

[ATTENTION ANYONE READING THIS: PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE TWO CONFLICTING VIEWS OF FEMINISM, NOT TO ENDORSE THE ONE YOU DON'T LIKE. MENTIONING THAT OPINIONS YOU DISAGREE WITH EXIST IS NOT THE SAME AS ENDORSING THEM, OR AS DENIGRATING THE OPINIONS YOU HOLD]

Suppose I recruit a big army to go after serial rapists and sexual harassers in positions of power. But then I DON'T make it clear what my intended future looks like. Suppose I'm vague about who is being targeted with the superweapons versus who gets away with a mere beating. Suppose I don't answer questions about what the rules should look like in my intended future state, and just keep escalating and pouring on more verbal and other aggression against the sexual harassers, the gropers and the 'seducers.'

Sooner or later, my foot soldiers will start deserting me, because they don't know what they're fighting for anymore.

I'm worried that this will happen to this movement if we don't start trying to be clear about what is, AND IS NOT, the desired end state.

[Ralin]

If so, I want to know where all you assholes have been over the past decades when this shit was actually occurring.

Same place you were, evidently.

Why didn't you call it out THEN?

Only found out Franklin was a creep in the past week. Meaning I've been calling it out longer than you, evidently.

I don't think men should sit in judgement on other men for these things - make the review boards, the judges, the grand juries, the small juries, everyone involved women. Let the women sit in judgement and hand down sentence for a change... and if they decide to be lenient then men should shut the fuck up because I am heartily sick of men trying to drive the narrative in these matters. Except I know it won't happen that way. Men (general, as a group) simply can not stand to give up power.

And the way you're tripping over yourself to defend the guy is an excellent example of why we shouldn't do that. Turns out that defending sexual assault isn’t even remotely restricted to men.

PS: Fuck you.

Roy Moore IS more evil than Al Franken, They are not deserving of the same punishment.

Being morally superior to Satan is a basic assumption, not something that warrants sympathy.

No, not all "sexual assaults" are the same. Any unwanted touching of a sexual nature is legally an assault, but if you can't tell the difference between having your ass pinched and being full on raped I just don't know what to do with you. While neither should happen one is far, far worse and trying to say they're both the same - "sexual assault is sexual assault" - shows a deplorable lack of a sense of proportion.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Seriously, do you want a 15 year old boy stealing a pat on the ass of a young woman treated the same a felony rape, with multi-year incarcerations and a black mark against him for life?

Yes, there ARE different levels of offense. Get a grip. A forced kiss is not the same as being beaten and vaginally, orally, and anally raped by multiple offenders. A forced kiss is not as bad as raping a child. A forced kiss is a wrong, and deserves some sanction, but if you equate it with the more extreme forms of assault your moral scale is broken.

Yeah, it is a bad thing. For legal purposes we have to divide it into categories, but saying that some kinds of sexual assault are only wrong enough to deserve ‘some sanction’ is monstrous. I have a friend who still has trouble going out in public in her 20s because she was groped in public when she was younger. People react differently to the exact same kinds of assaults and no, you cannot create some sort of objective hierarchy of which is worse when it comes to that sort of trauma.

Franken is a champion of universal health coverage, of preserving and strengthening social security, cutting subsidies to the oil companies, and increasing money for students seeking higher education while cutting interest on student loans and changing the rules that essentially make them wage slavery now. Not only has he supported those positions, he has voted in line with them consistently, which is why the GOP so loathes him and is jumping at a chance to get rid of him. That sort of political position, consistently followed up, is not common in today's Congress. That doesn't, and shouldn't, excuse his wrong-doings but don't think that he's going to be easily replaced in an equivalent manner. If he's forced out it will be tragic for the Democrats, for liberals, and for the American people because the common man has few champions in the halls of power these days.

Would removing Franken be a win for the US? No, it wouldn't. Because he's one of the few voices left in Congress who is for universal health coverage - you know, like what everybody else in the civilized world seems to have - preserving social security, and making advanced education available without the people getting it tied into multi-decade debt slavery. Yes, losing that voice would be a loss for the US.

My people, right or wrong. You’re literally saying he should get a pass because he votes the right way and you agree with his politics.

Again - that does NOT mean I think his actions should be without consequences.

Just without consequences that matter or that get in the way of him being a Senator.

But make it proportional to the offense, not a matter of making an example of him or throwing him under the bus in hopes of appeasing the GOP because you should know by now that nothing is going to appease the GOP as it is today short of a one-party take over and establishment of a fascist state. And they still won't be happy because it's in their nature to be unhappy.

Removing him from the Senate (by ballot if not by expulsion) is a proportional response to the offense. One which leaves him way better off than me, you or most of the country.

[K. A. Pital]

Er... do you somehow think he was a Senator when the groping/kissing occurred? He wasn't. He was predominantly a comedy writer and a somewhat known comedian when the offending behavior occurred. He was NOT one of the "rich caste of dystopia's overlords". He didn't get voted into the Senate until two years later, by a razor thin margin, in part because a lot of people thought his running for office was just yet another political comedy stunt on his part.

In other words, he was not one of the rich and powerful overlords at the time, and there's no indication that these actions had any part in his becoming one of the nation's lawmakers.

Note the previous comments on how Franken was a comedian, one without extraordinary wealth. His parents were a salesman and a real estate agent. At the time of the offense he was in no sense an "overlord," and if he becomes an overlord automatically worthy of crushing after becoming elected, retroactively, because he was "high on power" when he did something in 2006 because of gaining power in 2008... Well honestly, you should be an anarchist and not a communist, because you'll never find anyone in any public office who is anything other than scum, even after a revolution.

Furthermore, you have no fucking idea who an American politician is, and can't be bothered to look up his biography before saying he should be crushed, and you say he should be crushed anyway, then you have no place commenting on American politics. Any more than a frothing John Bircher had a place commenting on Soviet politics. So go do something useful instead.

Okay, I was wrong. I admit it, plain and simple.

Doesn't mean he deserves to remain a part of the government, but I was wrong and my judgement was hasty.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fuck him. Sexual assault is sexual assault and I don't give a damn about how liberal his politics are or how much worse the Republicans are. Being morally superior to Satan does not warrant a defense. If the Senate has some sort of mechanism for kicking him out over shit like this than by all means use it, otherwise vote him out at the next opportunity and replace him with someone we don't know pulls this sort of crap. If the GOP considers this a gift then they're welcome to it.

Oh, for fuck's sake, is this yet another case of men trying one-up each other over moral outrage on the behalf of women? If so, I want to know where all you assholes have been over the past decades when this shit was actually occurring. Why didn't you call it out THEN? One reason this shit has been going on since forever is because other men see this happening and either they join in the laughing or shrug, say it's none of their business, and walk off. Oh, but years later there's suddenly a contest to punished the transgressor and screaming moral outrage... where was that when it mattered?

I don't think men should sit in judgement on other men for these things - make the review boards, the judges, the grand juries, the small juries, everyone involved women. Let the women sit in judgement and hand down sentence for a change... and if they decide to be lenient then men should shut the fuck up because I am heartily sick of men trying to drive the narrative in these matters. Except I know it won't happen that way. Men (general, as a group) simply can not stand to give up power.

Or is it some sort of moral Puritanism where there is no distinction between greater and lesser crimes? Roy Moore IS more evil than Al Franken, They are not deserving of the same punishment.

No, not all "sexual assaults" are the same. Any unwanted touching of a sexual nature is legally an assault, but if you can't tell the difference between having your ass pinched and being full on raped I just don't know what to do with you. While neither should happen one is far, far worse and trying to say they're both the same - "sexual assault is sexual assault" - shows a deplorable lack of a sense of proportion.

Yes, the Senate has a disciplinary process. It is unlikely that it will be used to remove Franken because, as skeevy, disgusting, and gross as his actions were they don't rise to the level of forcible removal. Roy Moore, on the other hand, has a much higher chance of that if he is elected because being a pedophile is pretty goddamned evil.

I agree with most of what you said, but sincerely hope you are engaging in hyperbole when you advocate appointing judges and jurors on the basis of gender.

[Simon_Jester]

You say that like it's a bad thing.Seriously, do you want a 15 year old boy stealing a pat on the ass of a young woman treated the same a felony rape, with multi-year incarcerations and a black mark against him for life?

Yes, there ARE different levels of offense. Get a grip. A forced kiss is not the same as being beaten and vaginally, orally, and anally raped by multiple offenders. A forced kiss is not as bad as raping a child. A forced kiss is a wrong, and deserves some sanction, but if you equate it with the more extreme forms of assault your moral scale is broken.

Yeah, it is a bad thing. For legal purposes we have to divide it into categories, but saying that some kinds of sexual assault are only wrong enough to deserve ‘some sanction’ is monstrous. I have a friend who still has trouble going out in public in her 20s because she was groped in public when she was younger. People react differently to the exact same kinds of assaults and no, you cannot create some sort of objective hierarchy of which is worse when it comes to that sort of trauma.

Okay, so what do you think should happen? You can't simply not have an opinion here, not if you're willing to use so much strong rhetoric on the issue.

What should happen to a man who is found guilty of varying levels of sexual harassment and/or assault?

Irrespective of what the legal system does, how should society at large behave towards such a man? Should he be banned from responsible positions of authority but not menial or non-responsible jobs? Should he be permanently unemployed and ostracised by all humans forever? Should he be dragged out into the street and lynched? Where, specifically, do we draw the line?

So again, where do we draw the line for the harsh punishment and sanction of sexual assault/harassment? Is the line drawn at physical touch of specific sensitive areas of the body? At any areas of the body? Is the worst and cruelest imaginable verbal sexual harassment to receive this treatment along with the least damaging imaginable physical harassment? Do we apply the harshest sanctions to cases of verbal sexual harassment? Some cases? All cases? No cases? Where do we draw the line?

If some of these options appear ridiculous to you, well... to be blunt, that is why I am asking you to draw a line. Because if you're not willing to acknowledge that a line exists, then I have no assurance that in twenty years' time you won't be joining lynch mobs aimed at men who make stupid kissy noises and wolf whistles in the street. Which would strike me as being kind of disproportionate, in the same sense that chopping people's hands off for shoplifting is disproportionate. It's not that stealing or catcalling are ever, ever morally right... It's that there is an upper limit to the amount of punishment that should be applied for the crime.

Franken is a champion of universal health coverage, of preserving and strengthening social security, cutting subsidies to the oil companies, and increasing money for students seeking higher education while cutting interest on student loans and changing the rules that essentially make them wage slavery now. Not only has he supported those positions, he has voted in line with them consistently, which is why the GOP so loathes him and is jumping at a chance to get rid of him. That sort of political position, consistently followed up, is not common in today's Congress. That doesn't, and shouldn't, excuse his wrong-doings but don't think that he's going to be easily replaced in an equivalent manner. If he's forced out it will be tragic for the Democrats, for liberals, and for the American people because the common man has few champions in the halls of power these days.

Would removing Franken be a win for the US? No, it wouldn't. Because he's one of the few voices left in Congress who is for universal health coverage - you know, like what everybody else in the civilized world seems to have - preserving social security, and making advanced education available without the people getting it tied into multi-decade debt slavery. Yes, losing that voice would be a loss for the US.

My people, right or wrong. You’re literally saying he should get a pass because he votes the right way and you agree with his politics.

No, she is literally saying the opposite of that. She is figuratively saying "he should get a pass," because you are interpreting "he should not be thrown out of the Senate, a punishment that has not once been applied to any senator before in the past hundred years."

There are forms of punishment and accountability other than "get thrown out of the Senate." Not getting thrown out of the Senate is not the same as "gets a free pass."

Please do not use the word 'literally' and the word 'figuratively' interchangeably. They mean pretty much exactly the opposite.

Again - that does NOT mean I think his actions should be without consequences.

Just without consequences that matter or that get in the way of him being a Senator.

The latter is an accurate representation of Broomstick's position, the first is an extremely obvious misrepresentation.

But make it proportional to the offense, not a matter of making an example of him or throwing him under the bus in hopes of appeasing the GOP because you should know by now that nothing is going to appease the GOP as it is today short of a one-party take over and establishment of a fascist state. And they still won't be happy because it's in their nature to be unhappy.

Removing him from the Senate (by ballot if not by expulsion) is a proportional response to the offense. One which leaves him way better off than me, you or most of the country.

Removing a man from the Senate by ballot is not the same as removing by expulsion.

I have no desire to claim one way or the other how Franken's 2020 election should go. That's a problem for three years from now. Right now, the question is "does Franken get expelled pre-emptively from the Senate, Y/N." If the answer is "Y," then we are staking out a very strong position- namely, that what Franken did is worse than anything a senator has ever been punished for in the past hundred years.

[snip]

I agree with most of what you said, but sincerely hope you are engaging in hyperbole when you advocate appointing judges and jurors on the basis of gender.

We could do a hell of a lot worse, I'm starting to think.

Women are in a much better position to judge the actual degree of harm here than the vast majority of men. This is a generally accepted fact on the side opposed to sexual assault/harassment here. The difference is that usually, most of the time, this argument is advanced to justify ignoring men who try to minimize the harm caused by sexual assault/harassment.

The thing is... it is also a valid argument to justify ignoring men who try to maximize the harm.

It is not hard to imagine men looking at the present political climate regarding sexual harassment/assault. And it is not hard to imagine men starting to form metaphorical lynch mobs, trying to loudly make an example of the men who get caught as a way of signaling "No ma'am! I am not one of those terrible men! In fact, I hate those men! LET'S GO CASTRATE ALL THE CATCALLERS!"

Men are, to put it mildly, prone to this kind of behavior in stressful political times. The current stresses of gender politics are no exception.

While "no sex-segregated jobs in the legal system" is a sacred and enshrined principle... On some bluntly pragmatic level, we might actually be a lot better off if men consistently defer to the weighted average of female opinion about how a given sexual harasser/abuser should be treated. Because otherwise, men are very likely to go straight from constant underreaction on this issue to constant overreaction, due to having no idea how to react correctly, no direct sense of the magnitude of the harm, and only the knowledge that they "should be tougher on sexual assault."

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this prospect alarms me, because I don't want the current movement to hold sexual harassers/assaulters accountable to die. I most certainly don't want it to fizzle out into a haze of self-parodic examples of competing groups of Internet males chest-beating about how many catcallers they want to castrate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Those are valid concerns. Nonetheless, I can't help but feel that trying to segregate the legal system, even partially, on the basis of gender, would both set a terrible precedent that would likely spread to other aspects of the legal system, and further polarize our society into a mindset of "men vs. women".

To me, while an understandable response to the scope of this problem and the, the proposal comes across as yet another example of people responding to a crisis by trying to enact overly-authoritarian or heavy-handed measures. It happens again and again, in different forms. Rise in crime? "Three strikes" policies. Columbine? "Zero tolerance" policies where kids get expelled or have the cops called on them for basically no reason. 9/11? Patriot act, Guantanamo, torture- um, "enhanced interrogation", and a completely unnecessary war.

Your argument falls into the same assumption that tends to underlie these debates- that it is a choice between our ideals and pragmatism, between preserving the principles on which our government and judicial system are built and solving the immediate problem.

I tend to view it differently- that we have to try to solve the immediate problem in a way that doesn't a) exacerbate it, or b) lead to a different problem in the long term.

And I'll be the first to admit that I have no particular authority to speak on this subject, not only because I am a man, but because I have no professional or academic credentials in any related field, and because while I am not a rapist or groper, or a "lynch the abusers" internet tough guy-type like you describe (at least I'd like to think I'm not an internet tough-guy type), I am not vain or deluded enough to hold myself up as a paragon of wisdom or virtue on the subject of gender politics.

I just know that whenever I see things like "segregated justice system", it sets all my alarm bells ringing. Take that as you will.

[Gandalf]

Franken has been subjected to political attack by the GOP since his first announced a desire to run for the Senate. They've been trying to take him down from day one. Don't for one minute discount the political motivations at work here.

Why should anyone care about the political motivations at work? A person did a bad thing. That should be the consideration.

If you want to argue that his crime wasn't that significant and what the exact repercussions should be, that's an argument worth having and one I would be interested in reading. However, raising his political activities and the actions of his political opponents as though it's some sort of screen is pretty disgusting.

Also, Nate Silver wrote an interesting article on this subject as it broke;

At about 11:15 this morning, an hour or so after Leeann Tweeden published an allegation that Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota had groped and kissed her without her consent in 2006, I assumed that Franken was headed toward resignation. I didn’t necessarily expect Franken to resign immediately or without putting up a fight. But barring some highly exculpatory evidence, I expected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other prominent Democrats to be pushing Franken out the door.

Here’s why I thought that. First, the timing. The accusations against Franken came in the midst of a major scandal involving Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for Senate in Alabama, who has been accused of sexual misconduct toward multiple girls and young women. And it comes on the heels of scandals involving sexual assault or sexual harassment by some of the biggest names in Hollywood and the media business: Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K., to name some of many examples. It also comes about a year after Donald Trump was elected president even though he was accused of sexual misconduct by many women and was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by their genitals. The conduct Franken is accused of is just the sort of behavior that he has condemned, potentially making he and other Democrats look hypocritical.

Second, there was the photograph that Tweeden published with her article. It appeared to show Franken groping Tweeden’s breasts while she was sleeping — not providing a lot of room for “if true” statements about Franken’s conduct.

And third, there was political expediency. If Franken were to resign, it probably wouldn’t cost Democrats a Senate seat. Instead, an interim replacement would be named by Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton — a Democrat who would almost certainly appoint another Democrat. Then, a special election would be held next year to elect someone to serve the final two years of Franken’s term, which expires after the 2020 election. Next year’s midterms are likely to be blue-leaning (perhaps even a Democratic wave election), and Democrats are likely to hold Senate seats in states as blue as Minnesota under those circumstances. And Democrats have a deep and relatively diverse bench in Minnesota, with plausible candidates including State Auditor Rebecca Otto, Attorney General Lori Swanson, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, U.S. Reps. Keith Ellison, Tim Walz and Collin Peterson, former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and others.[1]

In other words, I thought the Democrats had an opportunity to maintain the moral high ground without having to pay a political price for it. They could keep the pressure up on Moore, who has put Republicans in a no-win situation in Alabama. And they could help to establish a precedent wherein severe instances of sexual harassment warrant resignation. In the long run, that might create more of a problem for Republicans than for Democrats, because the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment is conducted by men, and there are 265 Republican men in Congress compared with 164 Democratic ones.[2]

Instead, Democrats basically punted on the question. Here’s what Schumer said, which echoes the statements made by many other Democrats:

Sexual harassment is never acceptable and must not be tolerated.

I hope and expect that the Ethics Committee will fully investigate this troubling incident, as they should with any credible allegation of sexual harassment.

Almost all of these comments said that sexual harassment must be taken very, very seriously. But the remedy they propose for Franken — referring the allegations to the Senate ethics committee, a step that Republican leader Mitch McConnell, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Franken himself have also called for — isn’t particularly serious. Unless, that is, the committee process led to Franken’s expulsion. But there have been many ethics investigations and very few expulsions — none since 1862 — and none of the statements made by Schumer or the other leaders raised the possibility of expulsion.

Moreover, it’s not quite clear what behavior the ethics committee would actually be investigating: Franken hasn’t really denied Tweeden’s claim that he kissed her without her consent, and there’s already photographic evidence that appears to show he groped her. It’s possible the investigation could turn up evidence of similar incidents involving Franken and other women. But if Franken is a repeat offender — as so many sexual harassers are — that’s all the more reason for Democrats to want him out of office now instead of dragging the party through the mud.

Of course, what might be politically expedient for Democrats isn’t necessarily expedient for Schumer — or for McConnell, or for the White House, all of whom may be acting out of a sense of institutional self-preservation. If there’s a precedent that sexual harassment is grounds for removal or resignation from office, then a lot of members of Congress — including some of Schumer’s colleagues and friends — could have to resign once more allegations come to light, as they almost certainly will. President Trump’s conduct could also come under renewed scrutiny, as could the conduct of former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Politics is a male-dominated institution, and a conservative3 institution, and conservative, male-dominated institutions have pretty much no interest in flipping over the sexual harassment rock and seeing what comes crawling out from underneath it.

When we were thinking through the Franken story in FiveThrityEight’s internal Slack channel today, most of the men in our office thought that Franken was in deep trouble (“I think he’s toast,” I wrote at 11:07 this morning). Most of the women thought he’d hang in and survive. We’re less than a day into the story, but no surprise — it looks like the women will be right.

[1]Several of these candidates are running for governor in 2018, but some would probably be happy to switch to the Senate race because of the crowded gubernatorial field.

[2]That includes the two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats.

Just as a note, I did some minor edits to make this article work in this forum format. I put the tweet by Schumer into the quote box, and two bits of popup text were made into footnotes.

[Simon_Jester]

Franken has been subjected to political attack by the GOP since his first announced a desire to run for the Senate. They've been trying to take him down from day one. Don't for one minute discount the political motivations at work here.

Why should anyone care about the political motivations at work? A person did a bad thing. That should be the consideration.

People should care about the political motivations at work because if a few tens of millions of Americans go a week longer without health insurance because of all this, some of them will die. That's bad. It doesn't mean Franken isn't or shouldn't be accountable for his actions, be those present actions or actions in his pre-senatorial past.

But it's still bad, and there are still considerable reasons to suspect that the Republicans are trying to take advantage of this to:

1) Eliminate one of their worst enemies, and
2) Lay down covering fire so they can elect a known rapist of teenagers to the Senate themselves.

Regardless of whether Franken should remain in office, be voted out of office, resign, or be expelled from the Senate, those two outcomes are still bad.

If you want to argue that his crime wasn't that significant and what the exact repercussions should be, that's an argument worth having and one I would be interested in reading. However, raising his political activities and the actions of his political opponents as though it's some sort of screen is pretty disgusting.

I personally do not consider it a screen. It is part of the consequences and effects of this whole sorry affair. It is a very real thing. It is sad and frustrating and I wish it were not the case. I wish that only useless people, who do not do good things for their country in other ways, were guilty of sexual harassment and abuse, because then I would not have to worry about such things.

But sadly, we do not live in such a world, desirable as it would be.

In other words, I thought the Democrats had an opportunity to maintain the moral high ground without having to pay a political price for it. They could keep the pressure up on Moore, who has put Republicans in a no-win situation in Alabama. And they could help to establish a precedent wherein severe instances of sexual harassment warrant resignation. In the long run, that might create more of a problem for Republicans than for Democrats, because the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment is conducted by men, and there are 265 Republican men in Congress compared with 164 Democratic ones.[2]

I don't think Nate Silver is fundamentally wrong about this, though.

On consideration, I think that if Franken wishes to serve the long-term interests of his party and his country, resignation would be his best course of action right now. He is unlikely to do more good than harm in other ways now that his reputation is mud, and it is likely that other people can do his job adequately, if not so well as he did. He is not an indispensible man, and even if he were, the graveyards are full of such.

...

At the same time, I am not sure I'd be entirely happy with a world in which everyone associated with a person accused of such acts immediately demanded their resignation within a matter of, say, 24-48 hours. The current wave of sexual harassment and abuse scandals are not the first or only such scandals. And even given that all the current scandals are based on very real misconduct by the men responsible... there have occasionally been falsified scandals in the past. There probably will be again in the future.

Taking at least a few days to get the facts straight is probably a good reaction to preserve, even as we take this kind of conduct far more seriously. Perhaps especially as we take the conduct more seriously.

If finding out that Al Franken groped a woman and kissed her aggressively without consent were a relatively small thing in our eyes, then having everyone believe it immediately would do little harm.

If finding out that Al Franken did these things instantly blows up his career and discredits everything he's ever done... Well, suddenly, having everyone believe it immediately becomes something of a problem. At least assuming that Steve Bannon is taking notes on this scandal and remembers how to spell "Photoshop."

Because some time between now and 2030, I bet we will see at least one very convincingly falsified sexual harassment scandal engineered by someone cynical and well-funded. This is not "women are dishonest," this is not "victim are liars." This is simply because "there are a kazillion vile snakes in politics and many of them are ruthless."

Since I don't want to fall for that scandal, I do want to at least allow for a few days to elapse between initial accusation and final punishment. At least enough time to examine the pictures for Photoshop editing artifacts.

...

I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT ME SAYING VICTIMS ARE LIARS OR ANY SUCH THING. But any powerful weapon can and will be used, if a sufficiently ruthless man can find a way to wield it safely. And I'm pretty sure sexual harassment scandals have the potential to become such a weapon.

[Broomstick]

I agree with most of what you said, but sincerely hope you are engaging in hyperbole when you advocate appointing judges and jurors on the basis of gender.

Yes, it was hyperbole, thank you for recognizing that. After a lifetime of dealing with this sort of shit I do get frustrated sometimes.

[Broomstick]

If so, I want to know where all you assholes have been over the past decades when this shit was actually occurring.

Same place you were, evidently.

What, you seriously think I've stood by and watch these sorts of things happen and said and did nothing? Except, being female, my protestations were not taken as seriously as if I had been a man, I was accused of having no sense of humor, of ruining the fun, of over-reacting.

Why didn't you call it out THEN?

Only found out Franklin was a creep in the past week. Meaning I've been calling it out longer than you, evidently.

Oh, aren't you superior!

No, I'm not talking about just Franken - I'm talking about sexual harassment in general.

I don't think men should sit in judgement on other men for these things - make the review boards, the judges, the grand juries, the small juries, everyone involved women. Let the women sit in judgement and hand down sentence for a change... and if they decide to be lenient then men should shut the fuck up because I am heartily sick of men trying to drive the narrative in these matters. Except I know it won't happen that way. Men (general, as a group) simply can not stand to give up power.

And the way you're tripping over yourself to defend the guy is an excellent example of why we shouldn't do that. Turns out that defending sexual assault isn’t even remotely restricted to men.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between "let's not lynch him" and "no penalties". It's all or nothing with you,no middle ground.

And there you are, dismissing a woman's viewpoint because it's not harsh enough in your opinion.

PS: Fuck you.

Is that verbal harassment?

Roy Moore IS more evil than Al Franken, They are not deserving of the same punishment.

Being morally superior to Satan is a basic assumption, not something that warrants sympathy.

1) Roy Moore is not, actually, Satan. For one thing, Satan doesn't exist. For another, Moore, as vile as he is, is not in fact Teh Worst Thing Evar.
2) Again, you make no distinction in levels of offense.

Yeah, it is a bad thing. For legal purposes we have to divide it into categories, but saying that some kinds of sexual assault are only wrong enough to deserve ‘some sanction’ is monstrous. I have a friend who still has trouble going out in public in her 20s because she was groped in public when she was younger. People react differently to the exact same kinds of assaults and no, you cannot create some sort of objective hierarchy of which is worse when it comes to that sort of trauma.

If your friend is truly that fucked up from a GROPE when she was 15 what she needs is counseling, not white-knighting by you. Because virtually ALL women get groped at some point and the vast majority, although disgusted, are not that fucked up by it. Her reaction is not normal and should be appropriately addressed, not held up as a reason to overreact.

Stop being an internet tough guy.

My people, right or wrong. You’re literally saying he should get a pass because he votes the right way and you agree with his politics.

No, I'm saying I'm not convinced what he did warrants a summary expulsion from the Senate and in it's our best interest to impose a proportionate penalty to the offense.

The fact is most national leaders in history have not been very nice people. The overlap between "nice people" and "effective leaders" is actually pretty damn small. Once I figured that out I stopped either expecting or demanding perfection from politicians.

Removing him from the Senate (by ballot if not by expulsion) is a proportional response to the offense. One which leaves him way better off than me, you or most of the country.

It is up to the people of Minnesota to choose whether or not to re-elect him, not you or me.

As his offense has absolutely nothing to do with his service as Senator I'm not convinced that booting him out of the Senate is the appropriate response. Civil or criminal penalties after a trial is arguably more appropriate. Then let the voters decide when he's up for re-election. Or even hold a recall vote, if they feel strongly enough.

[Ralin]

What, you seriously think I've stood by and watch these sorts of things happen and said and did nothing? Except, being female, my protestations were not taken as seriously as if I had been a man, I was accused of having no sense of humor, of ruining the fun, of over-reacting.

I think you are advocating letting a senator off the hook for sexual assault because you agree with his politics.

Oh, aren't you superior!

No, I'm not talking about just Franken - I'm talking about sexual harassment in general.

I’m talking about Al Franklin and the recent revelation that he sexually assaulted someone as a prank and took pictures. You know, the topic of the thread.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between "let's not lynch him" and "no penalties". It's all or nothing with you,no middle ground.

If ‘shithead should not be a United States Senator’ isn’t the starting place for appropriate reactions what the hell is? Community service? Mandatory sensitive classes? A really heartfelt apology?

And there you are, dismissing a woman's viewpoint because it's not harsh enough in your opinion.

No, I’m dismissing the viewpoint of a sexual assault apologist.

Stop being an internet tough guy.

Fuck you, you little shit.

No, I'm saying I'm not convinced what he did warrants a summary expulsion from the Senate and in it's our best interest to impose a proportionate penalty to the offense.

As his offense has absolutely nothing to do with his service as Senator I'm not convinced that booting him out of the Senate is the appropriate response. Civil or criminal penalties after a trial is arguably more appropriate. Then let the voters decide when he's up for re-election. Or even hold a recall vote, if they feel strongly enough.

Okay, I’m going to clarify something I thought was obvious but maybe wasn’t. While I know the Senate can expel members I went into this assuming that was probably a pipedream and that ‘kicking him out’ meant the rest of the party collectively turning on him and him either being voted out of office or ideally being pressured into resigning.

It is up to the people of Minnesota to choose whether or not to re-elect him, not you or me.

And it’s everyone’s prerogative to condemn him for it until he resigns or is shunned by the rest of his party. And to do the same to his defenders.

[Simon_Jester]

What, you seriously think I've stood by and watch these sorts of things happen and said and did nothing? Except, being female, my protestations were not taken as seriously as if I had been a man, I was accused of having no sense of humor, of ruining the fun, of over-reacting.

I think you are advocating letting a senator off the hook for sexual assault because you agree with his politics.

And you know this because Broomstick demanded the expulsion of a Tea Party senator who got elected in 2008 because they were photographed groping a woman in 2006? Or was it something else...?

And there you are, dismissing a woman's viewpoint because it's not harsh enough in your opinion.

No, I’m dismissing the viewpoint of a sexual assault apologist.

Doesn't this provide you with an automatic reason to take literally everyone whose opinions are less harsh than your own, call them "apologists," and ignore everything they say?

I can't see why it wouldn't. But if you did that, then your views would be on a one-way ratchet. Every opinion harsher than yours is credible, and indeed you would have to adopt the harshest viewpoint anywhere near you, or risk being branded a rape apologist. Anyone who says "wait, this is just plain too harsh" gets called a rape apologist and is thrown off the sleigh to be eaten by wolves.

Taken to its extreme limiting case, the endpoint of this would then be lynch mobs howling "CASTRATE THE CATCALLERS!" in the streets. Because anyone who says "whoa, that's disproportionate" is a rape apologist, and therefore to be ignored. Even if they're a victim of similar abuse.

Is that your desired end-state? I'm guessing "no." But if not that end-state, why not? How do you square your current behavior and views with NOT eventually reaching that end-state?

No, I'm saying I'm not convinced what he did warrants a summary expulsion from the Senate and in it's our best interest to impose a proportionate penalty to the offense.

As his offense has absolutely nothing to do with his service as Senator I'm not convinced that booting him out of the Senate is the appropriate response. Civil or criminal penalties after a trial is arguably more appropriate. Then let the voters decide when he's up for re-election. Or even hold a recall vote, if they feel strongly enough.

Okay, I’m going to clarify something I thought was obvious but maybe wasn’t. While I know the Senate can expel members I went into this assuming that was probably a pipedream and that ‘kicking him out’ meant the rest of the party collectively turning on him and him either being voted out of office or ideally being pressured into resigning.

That clarifies matters.

Personally, I think the main appropriate pressure to apply to Franken is "you are hurting your party and your country with every day you don't resign," but that this should be said often and loud. Because he is, not least because of the way people like you are reacting to his continued existence.

I can think of other words to say to him if he continues to ignore that for an undue length of time.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree with most of what you said, but sincerely hope you are engaging in hyperbole when you advocate appointing judges and jurors on the basis of gender.

Yes, it was hyperbole, thank you for recognizing that. After a lifetime of dealing with this sort of shit I do get frustrated sometimes.

Fair enough. And I'm hardly in a position to cast stones when it comes to the use of political hyperbole, I know.

[Broomstick]

I think you are advocating letting a senator off the hook for sexual assault because you agree with his politics.

No, it's because I don't think what he did was a felony. If it was, 3/4 of the men in this nation would be in jail.

I’m talking about Al Franklin and the recent revelation that he sexually assaulted someone as a prank and took pictures. You know, the topic of the thread.

While forcing a kiss on someone is gross and disgusting, it doesn't approach "assault" in the sense of breaking someone's nose or putting a hand down their pants. Again, he did not actually touch her breasts, he pretended to - look at the photograph, you can see shadows under his hands, and the photographer also states that no actual contact took place.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between "let's not lynch him" and "no penalties". It's all or nothing with you,no middle ground.

If ‘shithead should not be a United States Senator’ isn’t the starting place for appropriate reactions what the hell is? Community service? Mandatory sensitive classes? A really heartfelt apology?

Clearly, you are not reading for comprehension. I already stated a public admission of wrong doing and an apology to his victim was a START. I'm all for community service, levying of fines, etc.

As I stated - as gross and disgusting as his actions were I don't think they were a felony based on what we currently know.

And there you are, dismissing a woman's viewpoint because it's not harsh enough in your opinion.

No, I’m dismissing the viewpoint of a sexual assault apologist.

Now that is getting downright insulting.

My difference of opinion does NOT mean I think there should be no consequences and it in no way makes me an apologist for anything.

Stop being an internet tough guy.

Fuck you, you little shit.

Isn't "fuck you" sexual assault....?

It is up to the people of Minnesota to choose whether or not to re-elect him, not you or me.

And it’s everyone’s prerogative to condemn him for it until he resigns or is shunned by the rest of his party. And to do the same to his defenders.

Oh, I see...

You're convinced yours is the only valid opinion, that somehow the vast, overwhelming majority of people are behind you, and you feel that anyone differing from your viewpoint should be subjected to the same penalties of someone guilty of what you term sexual assault even if those people are guilty of no such thing. Guilt by association. Enforcement of your will over others.

So, you're opposed to the accused among us having a legal defense and a day in court? You want witch hunts, too?

This goes beyond white-knighting, recreational outrage, and internet tough-guying. You want to abolish fundamental protections of the accused. You are appalling.

[Simon_Jester]

There's an applicable scene here from A Man For All Seasons...

Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

The laws we now have in place, the laws that limit what can be done to punish an 'obviously' guilty person on the grounds they are bad, the social norms that limit how much punishment should be applied to a given offense...

On the whole, these laws were not created to protect the strong from the weak. The strong have much less need of due process, on average. They enjoy every kind of benefit and every kind of resource and representation.

No, the people who really need laws like this are the ones who lack a voice, who lack the resources to mount a defense, who would otherwise be easily destroyed by the heedless grinding of the wheels of 'justice.' Even in cases where the rule of law and the principles of jurisprudence are removed specifically to enact a purge of the powerful, it doesn't stop there. Because once powerful people are targets, weak people are targets too. At first you're calling for Franken's resignation, then you're calling for public shunning of everyone who failed to support calling for his resignation.

As I said before, this trajectory ends with lynch mobs howling in the streets, because every opinion that is anything other than a parodic maximalist one has to be rejected in order to avoid the accusation of being "soft."

And very few of us, including those who now advocate the super-harshest punishments within the Overton window for sexual harassment and assault, would be able to stand up in the winds that would blow then.

There has to be a limit, somewhere along the way. The line might be drawn gently or harshly, but it has to at least exist.

[PainRack]

I been reluctant to post here regarding this issue, given my history and the previous accusations thrown at me here.


But while what Al Franken did is wrong, I don't think he should be forced into resignation. There's.... A whole lot of equivocation going on by Franken which does demean my opinion of him, but while what he did was wrong, it could had been innocent.

There are two confirmed cases right now, with an additional two anonymous accusations and more pending. While Franken says we should trust the victim...(great equivocation there while saying he don't remember the event), I find it suspicious for the anonymous claims. In an era of Project Veritas outright trying to dox the Washington Post, posing as a Jewish reporter and robocalling, pretending to have a fake victim report on Moore, Roger stone Twitter burst about Franken means that I want trust but verify .

So... That leaves the two cases.

The later, Franken groped on the ass while posing in a picture. Or... Maybe he pulled her in close, hands over hip and ass and then posed. It's not an unusual stance in Hollywood, although the very fact that the woman took offence meant what Franken did was wrong as he violated her personal space.

The first, Franken air groped her, as the picture actually doesn't suggest actual contact. A tasteless, offensive joke that at the min propagate rape culture. It also featured a kissing scene, where Franken was aggressive in rehearsals.


Again. What Al did was wrong. However.... But.... Intent matters. Given the context, Franken actions might have been innocent and he claims it was, apart from said joke. Don't remember groping her ass. Remember the kissing scene in another way, which charitably could be seen as Franken so focused on a skit comedic value, that he didn't realise he was offending the female . We could have a long discussion about male patriarchy and how men don't realise boundaries, and it might be a good opportunity to raise that with Franken who has superficially apologised for the incident, to educate him about boundaries.


But intent matters. Franken actions should not be judged as automatically guilty because others said so. I say this again, knowing that members of this forum once claimed I brought on accusations of sexual molestation on myself because I acted differently, but AGAIN, having been the victim of actually being groped by the lady only for them to claim I was the sexual harassed? Yah... So, I told a dick joke during a Cath lesson. My bad. Sexual harassment because she bumped into me and grinded my penis in lecture but I didn't react? Meaningless comments? Not actually interacting with said females whom I supposedly harassing? Yeah... Just as Angel halo exist, so does devil horns, and Franken might had crossed the line but he didn't mean to do it, he didn't read the discomfort of said women then, but using this to portray him as a sexual pervert?

I want more proof.

[Simon_Jester]

Given that the far right is remembering how to spell "false flag," I'm not putting credence in the anonymous accusations.

The named accusers are sufficient for me to drop my assessment of Al Franken's character right down to the floor and leave cracks in the tiles. And the reason I think he should resign is that if he ever was a patriot, he realistically cannot serve his country better than by setting the precedent that sexually harassing senators are supposed to resign. If he never was a patriot, he shouldn't have been elected to the Senate in the first place.

See, maybe he acted without what we might call criminal intent, but at best his actions were the equivalent of negligence: of being so blind and tone-deaf to women's right to privacy and security of their own bodies that it is simply staggering to imagine a good person who thought that way in 2006.