Despite Demands from County Council, Seattle Theatre Group Declines to Cancel Al Franken

Comments

1

Good!

2

“No matter how you feel about Al Franken, it is not the role of the government to legislate who adults are permitted to see.”

fortunately for the sake of the republic and the 3 seconds it would have taken a judge to strike down their legislation, they only issued a press release

3

When McDermott voted to give the Mariners $135 million last year, the fact that several high-ranking Mariners executive were facing troubling claims of sexual harassment didn't seem to concern him one bit.

A good journalist would have asked about that, Katie.

4

I'm fully with the ACLU on this. You may rightfully despise Franken. If you don't want to hear him, don't buy a ticket. If you really feel strongly about it, you're well within your rights to protest out front of the venue. But the county council should never have demanded canceling Franklin. That seems pretty much 1st Amendment 101.

5

Freedom of speech is a terrible thing.

We really need to shout down those whose opinions we find abhorrent. Do like the college students do, shout down or threaten with violence those whose opinions one objects too. It's the right thing to do.

7

@6 your mind is going to be blown when you find out which party al franken belongs to

8

I'm going to Franken's event. I have printed up copies of the First Amendment to hand to Ms Kohl-Welles if she is really there protesting, in case she needs to brush up on the Constitution's First Amendment. What nitwits.

9

Where was JKL and Joe McDermott when the Ed Murray shit was happening? What about when the Meinert story dropped? Or when their colleague Kathy Lambert still endorsed Joe Fain even after his rape allegation? This is a headline grab for two folks running for re-election. This is fake leadership.

10

The first amendment also allows your city council members to have stupid opinions and then issue press releases about them. But at least your council member understood she had no authority whatsoever to stop the event. If she is a nitwit then it doesn’t speak well for the people who needed to hear from the aclu before realizing this was just a cheap political stunt and not a constitutional crisis.

11

Thank god I’m gay. If I were straight or bisexual, I think this whole me too thing would have the following effects:

1) I would never hire any woman that seems even remotely likely to accuse me or any other male of sexual assault. It’s a sausage party at the office, boys, because at least i know you’re not going to get me cancelled. Mary, on the other hand, is so scary I just can’t risk having her on staff.

2) I would never engage in sex again, or express interest of any kind.you may very well have said yes at the start, but how do I know you’re not going to lie about it afterwards and claim you said no?

You know what girls. Sometimes you get what you asked for.

12

@11: So you'd become Mike Pence?

13

Al Franken got such a raw deal.

14

@12 - gay and not hiring women is already Mike Pence.

15

12,

That’s a non-sequitir.

And you know, if you hate it, good. Because you should hate it. You should hate that that’s the mentality you’re going to run into when you apply for a job. And you can yell about how much it sucks all you want, but it’s there. That actually is what your potential employer is thinking.

And that’s gonna make it a lot harder to get your foot in the door.

16

The proper response when someone punches your bum is to exclaim, “Oh, you cheeky little bugger” and get on with your life.

17

16,

That’s disingenuous. You know damn well as much as I do that that isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether you can make the appropriate claim in court, prove it, and then prosecute according to the rule of law. And if you can’t, do you have a right to use slander and libel,to destroy the career of someone whose guilt cannot be established?

18

@17: I don't know if you're aware, but Franken aside, these situations generally fall under the purview of HR departments, not the courts. So demanding that level of evidence makes you sound a little hysterical. As do your whole hypothetical business owner/ heterosexual dating scenarios.
Honestly it's not that hard. Treat all your co workers professionally, or if that's too vague for you, just try to live by the immortal words of the Georgia Satellites:

Don't gimme no lines, and keep your hands to yourself.

19

I’m glad our esteemed elected officials at King County got this all cleared up. I’m sure they’ll do an equally good job addressing the county’s traffic, drug, housing, and homeless problems.

20

18, When you are an elected official, the HR Department is the Court

21

@20: Yes, as I said "but Franken aside", but even in his case it wasn't going to lead to a trial or imprisonment, and his case is not the norm. To be clear I'm glad that his event wasn't cancelled. If people want to protest or not attend that's their right, but he's still got stuff to say, and there are people who want to listen, and they should have the opportunity to do so.
I have to say though, the whole "I'm going to take my ball(s) and go home, so there!" reaction by some men to the MeToo movement always makes me laugh.
1. If you're the sort of man who thinks it's likely you will be accused of rape then by all means, PLEASE remove yourself from the dating pool.
2. If you're the sort of man who is going to stop interacting with women out of spite because you may no longer have the option to behave inappropriately toward them, I'm afraid your gesture is only going to be met with relief. I mean seriously. Oh noes one less douche bag hitting on us whatever will we do, how will we ever continue with our lives.
Not having sex with you is a burden we can bear, I assure you.

22

yeah i don’t think “sorry ladies, as long as you people are speaking out about sexual misconduct this d is on lockdown” is the threat you seem to think it is

23

@21, @22: You’re ignoring Wandering Stars’ points about MeToo and other vigilantism possibly having the opposite of intended effect. What if a woman doesn’t get a job because a male employer is concerned, legitimately or not, about a future false accusation of rape? False accusations of rape are not rare.

Believing all accusations without requiring evidence, and ignoring all exculpatory evidence, will sooner or even sooner lead to bad outcomes.

24

@23: "False accusations of rape are not rare." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOOL
Not according to the FBI bucko.
You are also laboring under the delusion that "believe women" means "Believing all accusations without requiring evidence, and ignoring all exculpatory evidence"
It does not.
It means treating a victim of sexual assault with the same set of assumptions as the victim of any other crime. Because again, according to the FBI, that stats for false reporting is pretty uniform across ALL crimes, and yet someone reporting a car theft is not generally met with the assumption that they are lying.
And again, you're conflating a crime with an HR issue.
All y'all were perfectly fine with sexual harassment claims being handled by HR departments when those claims went nowhere, and boys could continue to be boys with impunity. But now that there might be consequences, and consequences no worse than that of any other work place violation such as stealing, or being late for work too often, it's all "RUINED LIVES" "CAN'T BE IN THE SAME ROOM!" "DUE PROCESS11!!1ELVENTYONE"

No. Getting fired is not being put in prison with out a trial, so just settle down.
Also? Threatening women with exclusion from job opportunities if they are unwilling to be harassed isn't a good look.
It doesn't disprove that workplace sexual harassment isn't a problem, and THING HAVE GONE TOO FAR.
All it does is reinforce the perception that men DO want to be able to sexually harass their co-workers and that if they don't get to they are going to retaliate.
And that's fucking extortion.

25

21,

This article is about Al Franken. You may note his name appears in the headline, and he is the topic of the entire article.

Perhaps if you had bothered to read it before posting commentary about it, you would have realized that on your own.

26

@25: Indeed it is!
In which case one wonders what your screed @11 endorsing discriminatory and retaliatory hiring practices and paranoid dating advice for heterosexual men was in aid of. It was, of course, said screed, to which I responded.
As I have stated, I am glad Franken's event was not cancelled, to do so, in my opinion would have been foolish. He has every right to go on the lecture circuit, and if people don't like it they don't have to attend or they are free to protest.
Oh and I must point out, (to get back to your screed) petulant statements such as "You know what girls. Sometimes you get what you asked for." do not nothing to advance the idea that the MeToo movement is unnecessary. All it does is reinforce the idea that some men are very upset that they can no longer sexually harass their co-workers with out consequences and thus will behave even more badly in retaliation.

27

26,

The only thing you have to offer are ad hominem attacks. I’ve yet to see any substantive argument in favor of any position in your posts. You use all caps, leet speak cliches from 20 years ago, and run on sentences, all of which speak to a relatively disorganized logorrhea.

I will waste no more time attempting to discourse with someone who cannot stay on topic, or formulate any intelligible responses. To do otherwise would be like arguing with a German meth addict.

28

@11 Wow! May be you are reacting this way because you already don't like women very much. You should look into it because it doesn't seem very healthy to be unable to relate to half of humanity (better half in many ways)

29

11,

Again, ad hominem attacks rather than anything resembling substance.

30

@29 It's not ad-hominem to note that if you liked women, you wouldn't conceive not having them around because they are too scary as you said @11

31

@27: Ad hominem? Off topic?
1. You and I are in complete agreement that banning Franken from speaking would be foolish and counterproductive. We are, I assume, in agreement regarding the right to free speech shared by both Franken and those protesting his event.
2. I responded directly to your own off topic comment @11, which did not once mention Franken or his event ,but was in fact a melodramatic flight of fancy outlining the retaliatory and discriminatory hiring practices in which you would indulge if you were heterosexual business owner, the paranoia induced celibacy you would practice, and culminating in the childish declaration that women not wishing to be sexually harassed justified both. You did everything but cross your arms, stick out your tongue and say "so there!"
3. I have not used all caps in my replies to you, nor have I called you names, (or insinuated that you are under the influence of controlled substances) and I am bemused by your armchair diagnosis of the origins of my writing style. I will, if only to appease you, attempt to use more commas in future, and refrain from what you apparently consider out dated internet slang :)

32

@27: I believe my comment @18 pretty clearly lays out my position regarding workplace harassment, and I don't see that it requires any supporting argument. I have copied the relevant passage for your convenience below.

"Honestly it's not that hard. Treat all your co workers professionally, or if that's too vague for you, just try to live by the immortal words of the Georgia Satellites:
Don't gimme no lines, and keep your hands to yourself."

33

32,

While I admire your dedication to a 1980’s one hit wonder that, aside from a brief moment on MTV, never produced anything of value, I must object to your conflation of my argument, at no point in time did I state anything that you suggest. What I did state, and quite clearly I feel, is that a chilling effect will be felt by employers considering candidates for a position as a direct result of #metoo. That chilling effect is a direct result of progressive politicians such as Al Franken, who I might add voted in favor of women’s rights consistently during his political career, had their careers cut short by an angry mob hurling accusations that have never been proven in Court. Since #metoo allows people’s livelihoods to be damaged without any proof or due process (and that is the subject of this article, which you apparently never bothered to read), employers seeking to protect themselves against this liability can do so simply by looking at two equally qualified candidates for a post and choosing the one that is not female. The fact that this is a rational choice is abhorrent.

Prior to the decision by Rose McGowan and Asia Argento to hijack Tanya Burke’s admirable attempt at building solidarity between victims, this was not a rational choice. It was a decision that could only be made out of irrational bigotry. However, now that people can be thrown out of public office without even having their day in court, now that we live in an era of mob rule, it is completely rational to insulate yourself and your business from a hastag on Twitter in this way. I wish that it were not.

I am pleased to hear, however, of your decision to abstain from tired old internet cliches from the late 1990’s. If anything should be enforced through pitchforks and torches, it should be a ban on cliches. I favor summary execution to deter their use.

34

@33: Hmmmm while you may have meant: "That a chilling effect will be felt by employers considering candidates for a position as a direct result of #metoo
What you actually said was: " I would never hire any woman that seems even remotely likely to accuse me or any other male of sexual assault. It’s a sausage party at the office, boys, because at least i know you’re not going to get me cancelled. Mary, on the other hand, is so scary I just can’t risk having her on staff."
We can chalk up this dramatic difference in tone to hyperbole I suppose.

You are again conflating the justice system with HR policies.
You don't get due process when you get fired. You can certainly sue if you feel that you have been wrongly terminated, but the initial disciplinary process does not require the standard of evidence you seem to think it should. And getting fired does not ruin some one's life in the way you are implying. If that were true you'd be clutching your pearls about Sam in accounting getting fired for taking extra long breaks.

I would say that if we're going to get melodramatic about the fears of business owners that perhaps not hiring men would be the answer, since it is their potential bad behavior that would be the instigating factor in a potential lawsuit.
Golda Meir had a similar solution when there was an outbreak of assaults against women at night in Israel, and a minister in the cabinet suggested a curfew to keep women in after dark. She responded that since it was the men who were doing the attacking if there was to be a curfew, then men should be the ones to stay at home, not women.

I frankly don't care how chilling men find it to be held accountable for their actions, and threatening retaliation in response to that new level of accountability is not an argument, it's extortion.
And really. Mob rule? There is literally nothing preventing Franken from running for office again. Certainly there will be people who will squawk about it if he does, but there will be plenty of people, such as yourself perhaps, who will be all about his redemption tour and will remember his policies and vote for him.
And maybe this time he'll remember to keep his hands to himself.

35

34,

Dear god, how many times do I have to repeat this: there is no fucking HR department for the US Senate other than the Courts.

Further, even when we discuss people other than Senator Franken, when it comes to criminal complaints, the Constitution guarantees all citizens a right to trial by jury, not by HR.

And definitely not by Twitter.

36

There’s no point in talking to you. You’re like a German or a tweeker. You don’t really care what the topic is, you’re not paying attention to what points are raised in conversation anyway, you’re just shouting. To you, it’s a battle of attrition, not a battle of ideas. If you can wear your opponent out, that’s good enough for you to presume victory.

To quote an old joke I heard in Cracow years ago, “The Germans and the Russians are coming over the border. Who do you shoot first?”The punchline: “The Germans. Business before pleasure.”

37

You keep going back and forth. There are two topics:
1) Franken
2) your assertion that the MeToo movement will cause business owners to retaliate against women by not hiring them and that men will stop interacting with women for fear of being accused of something.
I have been addressing that.

For the general public work place sexual harassment claims are handled by HR departments not the courts.

Franken resigned before a full investigation occurred. If he had wanted "his day in court" he could have had it, but for reasons of his own he chose not to. Nobody prevented him, certainly not Twitter.

Just an observation but you have a weird obsession with Germans and meth.

38

@11 Just thought I should add that having an all-male cohort is no recipe for freedom from sexual harassment or liability for engaging in such behavior. Not to insult your intellect or talking points, but anecdotally, regardless of whether my workspace was coed or not, the vast majority of sexual harassment, unwanted solicitation for sex or otherwise, and unwanted physical contact or come ons have come from men, and I was quite happy to take them straight to the female GM for creating a hostile work environment. And I don't think I was predisposed to accusing anyone of sexual assault.

Not to supplant any experiences from women or to minimize their experiences, but when you are trying to be productive in the workplace and you feel yourself being ogled, prodded, or brushed by "accidentally" by people who objectify you, it's remarkably upsetting. As such, I do not agree with your premise in this instance; the onus is always on the perpetrator to control themselves and be professional.

39

@24: "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOOL
Not according to the FBI bucko."

Wow, you wrote that exactly as if you'd cited FBI statistics. But you didn't. (In fact, nowhere in your invocations of FBI statistics do you actually cite them, although you sure seem to believe you have.)

Here's my source, from an article to which The Stranger had linked on the subject:

"...between 2% and 10% of all reports are estimated to be false."

(https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/)

An event which happens 10% of the time will occur, on average, three times in a month. An event which happens 2% of the time will occur, on average, more than seven times a year. Those are not "rare" occurrences.

If those are the numbers for false reports of rape -- you know, a felony, which should get a serious investigation -- then how often are reports of sexual harassment false? In the cases of well-known false rape reports -- the Rolling Stone case, the Duke Lacrosse players -- the person who knowingly made false accusations was never punished. How often is a false report of sexual harassment punished?

'You are also laboring under the delusion that "believe women" means "Believing all accusations without requiring evidence, and ignoring all exculpatory evidence"'

As you have already been reminded, the topic of this post is Al Franken, and that is exactly how he was treated. No evidence to support the accusations was ever presented, and the exculpatory evidence -- statements from dozens of women, some of whom had worked with him for decades -- was rejected out of hand. (Apparently, MeToo empowers women by telling them to f'ck off if they don't read exclusively from the script they've been handed.)

"No. Getting fired is not being put in prison with out a trial, so just settle down."

Oh, well, that makes it all better, then. Silly me for asking.

But wait -- can't both ruin the life of the person wrongly punished? Doesn't each deserve its' own due process, evidentiary rules, and defined punishments? MeToo offers none of these safeguards. It's just vigilante 'justice', from a mob of cowards on Twitter.

"All y'all were perfectly fine with sexual harassment claims being handled by HR departments when those claims went nowhere, and boys could continue to be boys with impunity."

Again, you seem to believe you have quoted "us" (whoever we are) when you've done nothing of the kind. Where are your statistics, showing that following due process within HR usually failed? Why on earth do you believe that someone who objects to false accusations would reject all accusations? False accusations make adjudicating valid accusations more difficult, which is one of many good reasons to oppose the making of false accusations. The only way to ensure justice, in either sexual harassment or rape, is to have a well-defined, transparent process, and to follow it for every accusation, without regard to externalities.

In other words, the exact polar opposite of what was done to Al Franken by MeToo.

"Also? Threatening women with exclusion from job opportunities if they are unwilling to be harassed isn't a good look."

Nobody said that it was. What Wandering Stars has noted, repeatedly, is that running a vigilante system where only women accuse only men -- in other words, a system like MeToo -- will have a chilling effect on hiring of women by men. That's a pretty obvious and predictable result, and that you don't like it should give you pause to consider what you might be doing to enable it.

40

@39: Sure, baby, sure. Whatever you say.

41

@40: That's rich, coming from someone who repeatedly failed to cite the "FBI" statistics upon which her argument depends.

Have a nice life.

42

@41: Oh I'm sorry, but you're under the the impression that 2% doesn't meet the definition of rare (7 incidents a year out of a population of 327.2 million in the US) then there's really no point in engaging you.
As I've said, I don't feel the slightest pang that men being held to the barest standard of professional behavior don't like it, and reiterate that threatening women with loss of employment opportunities due MeToo is nothing but petulant at least and extortion at worst.
In conclusion I will say that characterizing the MeToo movement as vigilatism says more about you than the movement.
Have a pleasant day, and try to remember to keep your hands to yourself.

43

42,

Kristin Gellibrand led the charge against Al Franken. How far did she get in the primaries? Not far, huh? Know why? Because nobody wants to hire her for the job. Why not, I mean, she’s got great positions on almost every issue. Maybe it’s because they remember her #metoo moment and decided, you know what, I just don’t want that kind of bullshit in the Oval Office.

Maybe you can try running. Let’s see how far you get.

And you know, if people aren’t willing to hire #metoo to be the POTUS, they might not want you around In any other kind of office, either.