Chu 朱13h ago

So much I love about this story.

Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/sexual-harassment-billboard-9.7152106

When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio

A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.

CBC
Show threadKerry Mitchell 🍁
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
2:21pmMastodon for iOS
Show threadCarolyn11h ago

@KerryMitchell @chu HR famously protects companies over employees, especially when it’s women complaining about harassment.

This is only “aggressive” to those who are defending sexual harassment.

Show threadKerry Mitchell 🍁10h ago

@CStamp @chu Yes, I agree. The ad copy doesn’t expressly say “flirting = harassment” it says that if HR is dismissive of your harassment complaint you should call Thomas, a lawyer.

Somebody at the authority took exception to the message, but their choice was to make the argument that the ad goes too far in equating flirting with harassment, and to suggest that the message was disparaging without specifically identifying the disparaged party.

Show threadChu 朱10h ago

@KerryMitchell @CStamp

Probably some dude in HR that got this ad killed. Or some dude who likes to harass women

Show threadKerry Mitchell 🍁10h ago

@chu @CStamp I suspect that whoever reviews ads for the authority tried to apply “within the organization” standards to material for the general public.

It’s ingrained in organizations that HR will deal objectively with complaints, and even people who know it’s a fiction see it as a necessary one to protect the organization from legal actions.

Maybe a really sexist person would misinterpret the ad and feel called out for “harmless flirting” but it depends on a misreading.

Show threadCarolyn10h ago
@KerryMitchell @chu It is quite simple: Women are people. Treat women co-workers and employees as people, not possible conquests.
Show threadIgnazio Palmisano5h ago
@KerryMitchell @chu @CStamp I suspect anyone who feels called out by this ad is not misinterpreting it, they're feeling a cold chill from having been almost caught, and now maybe someone might take a second look at things. And they deserve the discomfort.
Show threadKerry Mitchell 🍁5h ago
@ignaziop1977 Maybe. I wouldn’t say an objection to the ad, even on the basis of a belief that flirting is not the same as harassment, is necessarily evidence that the person objecting has past misdeeds to cover up.
Show threadCarolyn9h ago
@KerryMitchell @chu A big problem is that when one goes to HR to complain about sexual harassment, that person gets labeled as “difficult.”
Show threaddr 🛠️🛰️📡🎧10h ago

@KerryMitchell @chu It doesn't disparage "HR" either. The ad uses a verb tense that appears to refer to a single real case.

It isn't: When HR calls it .... we call it

It is: When HR called it ... we called it

Show threadKerry Mitchell 🍁10h ago
@davidr @chu No - the need for the ad suggests that multiple people will find themselves in this position and want to seek assistance from a lawyer. It’s supposed to be a relatable scenario.
Show threadJohns9h ago

@KerryMitchell @chu HR exists to protect the company, unions exist to protect the workers.

If an abuser is on a higher place than the abused, HR will move heaven and earth to either bury the issue or gaslight the abused.
Only the laws will force them to behave.

I love both the ad and the judge.