Where's the Harm

I was asked in comments associated with the post on Judge Dierker, what’s the harm in someone saying something offensive.

Read the original story in the Riverfront Times about the woman and the case that forms the basis for the first chapter in Judge Dierker’s book.

Then tell me: do you see harm?

This entry was posted in Diversity, Stuff. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Where's the Harm

  1. Pingback: Just Shelley » Would you want this man as your judge?

  2. Wow. That is some crazy shit. I can’t believe the judge turned what should have been an open & shut case of sexual harrassment into a screed against feminism.

    I especially like

    >During the day, at the office, the doctor began trying to touch the woman’s breasts and buttocks and exposed his genitals to her, requesting that she perform sexual acts. She didn’t, and again asked him to stop. According to the suit, the doctor continued his behavior for seven more months.

    when juxtaposed against

    >”The pleaded facts must show outrageous conduct, i.e., conduct which is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” Dierker continues. “Mere solicitation to begin, or renew, a sexual relationship is not such conduct. There must be more.”

    So this clown believes that flashing your genitals at someone and grabbing at their breasts is tolerable in civilized society? And he’s a judge? Color me flabbergasted.

  3. Shelley says:

    I know Dare, when I read this story at Riverfront, all I could think of was what kind of a person goes on that kind of a screed when faced with a woman taken advantage of her boss who also happened to be her psychiatrist, and who was abused this way for seven months before being fired.

    And then to say that the doctor really was ‘just after sexual gratification’ and hey, what’s the harm in that?


  4. ralph says:

    The judge sounds like he’s on the fast track to the Supreme Court….

    Absolutely appalling.

  5. Jance says:

    No, not on the track to the Supreme Court, or anywhere else for that matter. That’s the problem. Dierker envisions himself highly intellectual, but he’s been passed over time and again, plus being overruled time and again by his States appellate courts. Imagine being judged by someone who things sexual advances by your treating psychiatrist are just free speech. What kind of nightmare is that, and what kind of unbiased judge of any witnesses credibility who is from any one of the groups Dierker envisions as destroying the Constitution as he sees it.