Posted on 10/18/2004 1:37:23 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 10/18/2004 2:53:02 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Boo-freakin'-Hoo! I am getting very weary of people who file lawsuits, expose every intimate detail of their lives -- sexual and otherwise -- and then b!tch and moan about not having any privacy and "wanting their lives back." Give me a break!
No. Not in a civil suit.
Certain criminal acts do provide "Jane Doe" treatment, depending upon the state law.
Remember that BOR filed suit first, before she filed hers. She may have assumed if he had just said "no" (no irony intended) to her out of court settlement proposal, she could have walked away with her privacy still intact. BOR surprised her with his suit against her alleged extortion. So now she unexpectedly has become a publicly known figure.
Quote: More immediately to the point, unless she told him she was recording the conversations, they are illegal and inadmissible in court.
I've seen this thought posted on several occasions. The laws governing the taping of phone conversations vary from state to state. For instance - in Texas (where I live) she would not have violated any law. Does anybody know what the law of New York says of such behavior?
If they ask her "why didn't you hang up? Why did you keep going out with bill to restaurants to tolerate the harassment? Why did you keep listening to this stuff?"
I'm betting she will say because she felt compelled to be nice and put up with it because she feared losing her job or suffer in some way at the job if she didn't put up with it, but it too far when he kept specifically asking for sex. When your boss asks you to get donuts you do it. You don't talk back to, act rude etc. to the boss. He also has the power to turn it around on you and make you look like the bad guy and get other employees at fox to make your job unpleasant or uncomfortable (everyone ignores you like you have a disease etc.). She decides to just leave the situation entirely instead of rocking the boat.
Next they will ask, "why didn't you complain to fox management?"
She will probably say something like, "I feared they wouldn't take the matter seriously because he is the star of foxnews and brings in good ratings. I thought they would do little to punish Bill and I would be the one to be removed from the situation to another department, or get rid of me, never advance, things like that."
I used to listen to O'Reilly's radio show. One of his co-hosts is Lis Weihl. After the Janet Jackson episode at the Superbowl, he asked Lis repeatedly to take off her blouse. He also told her he liked watching lesbians make out.
O'Reilly was always telling Lis that she's a pinhead, but beautiful, and she giggled at that and other comments. I wondered if O'Reilly would get in trouble with his wife for being too friendly to Lis. Finally, I got bored with the show and stopped listening.
IMO, O'Reilly has a loose tongue and has gotten away with saying whatever he wants to young women. It looks like a young woman who's out for BIG BUCKS has called him on it. It had to happen sooner or later in these days of of big-money lawsuits. If she didn't tape him, she won't collect.
"Maybe she has the Anita Hill syndrome."
What, she believes so strongly in baby-killing that she's willing to lie?
"Look at me look at me look at me ME ME ME ME ME!" "I just want to have my privacy."
I haven't ever listened to his radio show...I really don't like a lot of what he does, plus I don't have a lot of radio time and reception here at home is slim to none (same with cell phone reception).
That seems like Howard Stern-type stuff to me.
After reading the first reports of this charge, I didn't know who to believe. But, after seeing this headline that this woman only, "wants her life back" I have concluded that she is a gold digger. The alleged offenses consisted of dirty telephone calls which she could have stopped at any time by merely stating that she wasn't interested and to stop - or else. To blow such incidents into something that has destroyed her life is a gross overstatement and implies that she is some kind of delicate flower at the mercy of the big bad business world exec.
What is it with these grown women that they can't seem to figure out how to handle an unwanted advance? I've seen women at parties cut mashers off at the knees after the first unwelcome remark and believe me, they didn't mince any words.
You are exactly right. However, given 30 years' of feminist "lawyeristic" rhetoric and abuses ... according to those who think only with the left cranial lobe: words equals actions. The translation being: sue anyone who disagrees with you.
Secondarily, years ago I asked one specific question in every forum I was in: if two people in different cities are doing "cyber sex" does this constitute an actual "sexual act"? In my estimate: no -- it does not constitute "doing the deed". However, poll after poll disagreed with my opinion. And on what legal grounds might these polls have been pinned to?
Also tied to feminist legalistic tricks: creating a hostile environment. Ergo, just "talking" in a certain way is esteemed to "create" the chimera of a "deed".
It's all crap, IMHO. There are words, and there are deeds/acts. It's all designed to feed the legal leviathan and totally screw up communications between people, as well as definitive logic.
Well I don't know if I'd say cyber sex isn't cheating...
May not technically be sex, but neither would be say both people being in the same room and masterbating while watching one another. Or having phone sex....
If folks are doing that, particularly behind the back of their spouses, they are definately engaging in some behavior that I would not classify as trustworthy or healthy in terms of a long term relationship.
Either way I don't think I'd view that in the same light as flirting.
I did some teen youth leading some years ago. They had no idea what "dating" was. When I explained it to them, they thought dating was a marvelous idea, and why hadn't anyone ever thought of it. ???
Nah, I didn't feel old, from their comments, it just made me want to make things even clearer and better for the upcoming generations.
Yup -- where I used to work (multinational consulting firm), the partners were basically small gods. They would run around and harrass women all the time; when women went to HR, they were told a report would go in the partner's file, and that was it. In the meantime, depending on how vindictive the partner was, the harrassee's career path would suffer.
You can say "just leave" -- but isn't that like telling someone whose neighbors are being burglarized to "just move?" The behavior that needs to change is the perp's.
That said, it's not yet clear what happened here. I just disagree with everyone who pre-emptively blames this woman even assuming O'Reilly *did* harrass her.
Hmmm.
This is a civil case. He's not going to be "booked" on anything.
With all due respect, I read the entire complaint. I do not like O'Reilly in the least, and if he actually said all these things to her, then he is scum. However, she kept staying on the phone with him, having dinner with him etc. Now why was that do you suppose? Was it so she could tape him for her leftist friends to bring him down? Who knows, but the point is, she could not have been as upset as she pretends, or she would have put a stop to it immediately. I did once!
I want my life back! (O'Reilly Accuser)
"Fox told her not to come in,"
Why would they do that? Is that Fair and Balanced? If they told her not to come in then why don't they get a fill in for O'Reilly and tell him not to come in either until this is all settled? Either let her and O continue to work or tell them both to stay away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.