Cristiano

A rape victim confronted Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana over his vote against an amendment that stopped federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of sexual assault the right to bring their case to court. The amendment passed, but 30 Republicans voted against it, including Vitter. When confronted, Vitter gave double-speak answers and even claimed Obama was against the amendment too, which was not true.

Vitter Confronted By Rape Victim Over Franken Amendment Vote

__________________
"At least he died doing what he loved most - blogging on the Huffington Post" - 30 Rock

* slu stuff *

Har Fairweather

The notion that anybody, particularly including an employer can block someone from seeking redress in court for a crime, especially a felony, and really especially so personalized a felony crime as rape, is ludicrous on its face. without knowing anything about the fine print in this apparently egregious matter, it's a classic fail.

Liona Clio

Um...

So, does anybody want to really discuss this? I, for one, am not interested in being labeled pro-rapist again. Could we talk about issues that are more open for debate...like, say, baby cannibalization?

__________________


"Well, my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle."

Especially at night, I worry over situations I know will be alright. Perhaps it's just imagination. Day after day it reappears. Night after night, my heartbeat shows the fear. Ghosts appear and fade away... -Colin Hay

Asher Bertrand

It's not about you...

__________________

Gigs

This is a case of legislators litigating from the house chamber. (hehe)

Anyway the courts have been throwing out binding arbitration clauses, rightfully so.

I don't like the way this particular thing is being framed... we are talking about civil lawsuits against the company. Rape is still prosecuted criminally regardless of contract law.

__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes

Liona Clio

It's not about the victim either, either, if you ask me.

I simply don't see the point in a thread where everyone basically agrees with the OP, calls the OA (Opening Atrocity) heinous, dark, and black, and wishes the OV (Opening Villian) woud burn in the lowest layer of Hell.

IMHO, iwhat posting in this kind of thread is really about is validating one's morality from the simple act of saying in essence, "Evil is Bad".

It's a waste of time, if you ask me. Just thought that needed saying.

Asher Bertrand

Personal agenda or something?

Mocksoup Graves

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Louis D. Brandeis

Not a waste of time. Illuminating issues. Bringing them to the forefront of conversation. Making sure they don't happen again, if we can help it.

__________________
Trout Slut Rating : Boobie UPDATED to a 7! WOOT!
You are marginally a slut, but still all lady, and you know exactly when to cross that line. Congratulations and shame on you! You are a slut, but only in the best, most empowering and beautiful definition of the word.
MockBlog
Plurk

Richie Waves

wat

__________________
My lastfm

Oooh, Betty! the cat did a shit in the hat

Colette Meiji

"if you work here and one of your co-workers or another contactor commits a crime against you, you can not sue us, because we are too evil and/or lame to tell them they can't commit crimes against their colleagues"

basically

Richie Waves

Exactly colette!


you nailed this issue right in the face.

Gigs

The interesting thing is... this only really matters for private security agencies.

An employer isn't vicariously liable for violent crimes usually, unless the use of force is part of the job to start with.

So the scope of this liability is very narrowly limited to companies that provide private security forces.

Cindy Claveau

I had thought there was an article in the US Code which stated that such deals were unlawful? Something about the right of all citizens to seek redress in court.

__________________
Sometimes, "I hit it with my axe" is the best solution.

Arilynn

I don't understand what you want. Would you prefer no discussion about crime, even ones that talk about the legal aspects of the crime such as this one tangentially does? You said, "It's not about the victim either", but I'm sure you don't want a thread entirely about the victim - although I'm not even sure what a thread like that would consist of.

What is the problem with people essentially saying "Evil is bad"? It might not be the most controversial or enlightening discussion, but it usually stems from outrage over some news event that no one here can directly affect. In those times, there's not much available aside from an emotional reaction. If most the emotions run in the same direction, that doesn't invalidate any individual one.

There have been many threads about violent crimes in which a lot of people simply posted their outrage and anger. And there have been some that additionally had discussions of related issues. Neither are a waste of time to the people participating. After all, what is the value to any thread that makes it worthwhile? No one will solve any RL problems here, but at best it will serve as a release, a comfort, a source of another perspective, or even just a laugh. If you disagree, what, in your view, makes a thread worth the time?

Arilynn

The 5th Circuit opinion that upheld the decision in the Halliburton/KBR case talks about the circumstances under which arbitration can be compelled:

Gigs

Inevitably, anyone who challenges the "outrage steamroller" gets accused of either doing the crime in question or being sympathetic to the crime in question. That part should stop.

Arilynn

Thanks. I disagree with the "inevitably" and "anyone" part, but I do think it happens and agree that it should stop.

A lot of these discussions start because of a violent crime story, which raises a lot of emotion, especially if someone is reading about it for the first time here. So a lot of the posts are purely emotional reactions to what was read. Others, for whatever reason, will be posting in opposition of the ideas behind the outrage. It seems to me that that would ideally create an obligation on outraged posters to try to read responses in a more detached manner and another obligation on those who challenge the outrage to be careful with their words. I think both sides often fail.

Ayu Sura

I think many of these challenges are delivered like a glove slap across the face, though - they might be reacted to differently if stated a little differently.

__________________
"You broke the rules! Now I pull out all your pubic hair!" - Tenacious D