FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


F her right in the P





Indi
I just created another thread that was inspired by this same news story, but that one has a very different focus.

First, the story:

There is apparently a "meme" going around where, if you see a television reporter - particularly a female reporter - out in public doing a report or interviews, someone breaks into the shot and shouts "****** her right in the pussy". It's supposed to be hilarious. Somehow.

Anywho, reporters were getting understandably frustrated with the "gag". Some female reporters were getting hit dozens of times a day. They did reports and editorials explaining why it was harassment, and asking people to stop preventing them from doing their jobs, but to no avail.

And then one reporter - Shauna Hunt - who was reporting at a soccer event in Toronto - and who had been hit by the "gag" at least a half dozen times already that day - finally had enough. While she was interviewing some guys (two innocent guys that had nothing to do with the "gag", who she was just interviewing normally as part of her job), she heard a group behind her conspiring to do it. She immediately turned the camera on them and demanded that they explain themselves. Shockingly, none of the guys were the least bit ashamed of what they were doing - in fact, they laughed right in her face, and into the camera, saying they would keep doing it. One man, when Hunt asked him what his mother would think, simply laughed her off, saying his mother would find it hilarious.

Well, Hunt went online with the video, and asked social media to find the guy's mother. But then things went viral. The man was identified - turned out he worked at a public utility company making a six-figure salary. The company found out what was going on, and promptly fired the man.

A few days later, another reporter in Calgary was doing a street interview, and someone yelled the phrase at her from a truck. She turned the camera on the truck, and caught the licence plate. The driver is now facing criminal charges. (For performing a stunt while driving that might lead to an accident.)


Now the other topic is about the consequences these "jokers" faced for their "gag". This topic is about the gag itself (the consequences are irrelevant).

The people who do the "gag" claim it's harmless, and hilarious. Do you agree? Not so much with the "hilarious" part, of course - we're not here to critique comedy.

Their argument is that the reporter is in a public space. If she - and it's usually a she - had been in her studio or offices, of course they wouldn't disturb here there; that's her workplace.

The reporters, meanwhile, stress that they are in their workplace when they're out on the street doing interviews. They're doing their job. They're not there by choice, either - they have to do these "streeters" as part of their job.

But (proponents argue) public space is public space. You can't just waltz in to it, set up an imaginary barrier, and say it's now your private space.

And of course, there are many other issues involved, which i'm sure we'll cover in the discussion.

The topic of this thread is the ethics involved in these kinds of stunts. But note, i'm not just talking about the "FHRITP" stunt. I'm also talking about - for example - activists disrupting press conferences with government officials. How are those kinds of events similar to the "FHRITP" "gag", and how are they different? Is one okay but the other not? Why?

Generally:
  • When is disrupting people doing their jobs okay?

  • If you're going to disrupt someone doing their job, does it matter if they're in a public space, or a private one? Does it matter if it's their private space, or not? (For example, if a news crew was on your lawn, could you turn the hose on them?)

  • What kinds of disruptions are okay? What kinds of motives for disruption are okay?

  • What other issues are in play in the "FHRITP" case?


Please don't just write a list of bullet answers to the questions above. Each one deserves proper thought and consideration on their own. Pick one, and think deeply about it.
deanhills
For me the "gag" (especially in Canada where it is against the law to discriminate against women) is anything but hilarious, particularly when the women in question sent a very clear signal that it is serious to them. They said "No". The "gag" is sexual harassment, nothing more and nothing less. Doesn't matter where it happened whether in public or at work. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against women in Canada. In Ontario there is also a Human Rights Code against discrimination that includes harassment based on sex.
http://owjn.org/owjn_2009/component/content/article/60-discrimination-equality-harassment/325-ontario-human-rights-code

Quote:
Discriminatory practices also include harassment. Harassment means behaviour that demeans (puts someone down), humiliates or embarrasses a person if a reasonable person should have known it was unwelcome. Harassment involves actions (such as touching, pushing), comments (such as jokes, insults, name-calling) or displays (such as posters, cartoons). When this behaviour is directed at a person because of personal characteristic, such as race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, then it is discrimination. Racial slurs or jokes, even if they are not directed towards a particular person, are also forms of harassment.


It's also covered in the Canadian Human Rights Act:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html

Indi
deanhills wrote:
For me the "gag" ... is anything but hilarious, particularly when the women in question sent a very clear signal that it is serious to them. They said "No". The "gag" is sexual harassment, nothing more and nothing less. Doesn't matter where it happened whether in public or at work.

There are a few problems with that formulation, though.

First, several male reporters have been victims of it, too; how you claim sexual harassment in their case? If the problem is just sexual harassment, then is it only wrong when people do it to female reporters?

Second, while this particular stunt might be sexist, that's just a quirk of the specifics. If what they screamed was something else vulgar that didn't involve denigrating any sex/gender/race/whatever... then what do you do? For example, suppose the "gag" was to scream "i like eating poo" (except, obviously much more than that - much more graphic and vulgar). Would that be okay?

So the explanation that it's sexual harassment is not enough. Yes, FHRITP is sexual harassment, but that's clearly not all that's wrong with it.

And third, sometimes it's not wrong to keep disrupting from people doing their job even after they've seriously asked you to stop. It is not wrong for a protester to demonstrate at an event, for example, where some politician is speaking. Or even an event where a private citizen is speaking - it is not wrong for people to protest at a Bill Cosby event, for example, that he's still being allowed to do shows while refusing to answer the charges against him. (Or is it?)

If you want a more relevant example for the last case: CBC is Canada's public broadcaster, and it's pretty apolitical (in the sense that the government really has little or no say over what it airs), but imagine if the Canadian government were a dictatorship that tightly controlled the CBC, and there were some atrocities going on that the government refused to answer for, and the CBC was complicit in covering up those atrocities (by simply never talking about them). In that case, if people where videobombing CBC reporters to scream "tell the truth about ____" or "the government is lying about ____", that wouldn't be wrong.

So whatever is wrong about FHRITP, it isn't merely the disruption of people doing their jobs, it isn't merely ignoring their requests to stop, and it isn't merely the nature of the act (shouting something to disrupt on-the-street interviews). It must be something else.

deanhills wrote:
...in Canada where it is against the law to discriminate against women...

... unconstitutional to discriminate against women in Canada....

... In Ontario there is also a Human Rights Code...

... also covered in the Canadian Human Rights Act...

This is not a legal forum. And it is certainly not a Canadian (or Ontario) legal forum.
tonberry
Legal matters aside, it's disgraceful behavior. If I had a son and he would do something like that and it would go public, I'd be so ashamed! They say that a person's sense of humor can indicate his level of intelligence and if that's true, how dumb are people who find this kind of thing funny? Children are like parrots nowadays, accepting even the dumbest trends without so much as a thought and repeating it.

Another irritating internet trend were those ghetto interviews - white boys from mid/high class would go to crowded places in black ghettos in the middle of the day (for their safety) and say stupid things that mean something offensive/aggressive only to explain later that they meant something harmless. Everything caught on a hidden camera and posted on Youtube later of course. Supposed to be funny but I hope every single one of those kids got a painful life lessons from those gags at some point Very Happy

High living standards, extremely dumbed down education system, lots of freedom to express ourselves with extreme repression to any form of criticism, no matter how repulsive is what we're criticizing - all those things together and we have a clueless little idiots with so many possibilities that the sky is the limit, yet not enough intelligence to make much sense of the world, so no wonder that their idea of entertainment is so low.
LxGoodies
"You can do anything with these women, grab 'em by the pussy..."

Donald Trump, the President Elect of the United States (at age 59)
Josso
LxGoodies wrote:
"You can do anything with these women, grab 'em by the pussy..."

Donald Trump, the President Elect of the United States (at age 59)


ah, 2016 how I love you
Haiku2016
Yes, it is harrassment. And should be punished accordingly. The answers I'm posting below is meant to address the arguments raised and not addressed to the person, i.e. Indi. I respect your views. These are just mine. The "you" I mean below is a general "you" and not you in particular, Indi. Please don't be offended.

Quote:
First, several male reporters have been victims of it, too; how you claim sexual harassment in their case? If the problem is just sexual harassment, then is it only wrong when people do it to female reporters?


It is wrong simply because the victim doesn't want it. She said no. It doesn't matter if it's male, female, young, old, whatever race, etc. If I don't like it, don't do it to me. Find someone else who shares your "sense of humour". If I don't like it, don't do it. That's harrassment.

Quote:
For example, suppose the "gag" was to scream "i like eating poo" (except, obviously much more than that - much more graphic and vulgar). Would that be okay?


No, it's not OK. Do it in your blog. The media is a private company doing their job, presenting some material to the public. Grabbing their time is wrong and should be illegal. How would you like it if somebody, as a prank, shits on your frontyard and has a good laugh at the stench and trouble it causes you? If you want to do something, do it with people who appreciates you and in your own space. You have your rights. But so does everyone else. That means respecting what they want as much as you want them to respect you.

Quote:
And third, sometimes it's not wrong to keep disrupting from people doing their job even after they've seriously asked you to stop. It is not wrong for a protester to demonstrate at an event, for example, where some politician is speaking. Or even an event where a private citizen is speaking - it is not wrong for people to protest at a Bill Cosby event, for example, that he's still being allowed to do shows while refusing to answer the charges against him. (Or is it?)


I disagree. Personally, I think it's wrong. Even in the above instances. At the very least, uncivilised (meaning, not appropriate public behaviour - civic, civil, meaning something about cities and public behaviour). There are lots of avenues, particularly in the Western world, to have your say, make your point, publish your views. You can blog, write to the press, publish your own books, rally your friends, your freedom of speech is guaranteed. So, why must you disrupt other people's lives to make your point? Yes, sometimes, bad people get away with doing bad things. Yes, society is full of holes which need to be corrected. Yes, it is good to right wrongs and fight for what is right. But I have more respect for people who actually do that - people who work in charity, in prisons, fight our wars (whether they agree with it or not), who clean our streets, provide legal counsel, teach, cure, parent - people who do their jobs, than people who throw tantrums at other people just to make a point. Or just to show they can get away with it. It is not brave, it is not smart, I don't see anything to admire about it.
Related topics
Puzzles!
Harry Potter!
Yo mama so fat...
sms jokes
sms jokes
Do people sue too much?
americans,wake up!!!!!
subs or dubs
VIRGINITY does it matter?
Most Christians do not read the Bible, this is a fact!
[for 16yrs old+ thread] Kristen (photography)
The Positive Side of Atheism
Im boring, Where do i find a boring girl to get bored toghet
100 word story contest, [Closed, winner declared]
Portable web design/development workstation guide
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.