[continued from previous message]   
      
   Candidates for political office should advocate for Congress to commission a   
   report to study the ways in which the online hate ecosystem impacts the   
   election process, how misinformation sways voters, and how aspiring political   
   candidates at every level    
   are impacted by content that targets them based on their identity. Incumbents   
   should commission further study into these research topics and should work   
   with civil rights organizations and technology companies to collectively scope   
   out this research.   
      
   If you look at the news industry, newspapers and news channels ruled the   
   industry for decades. They are still not outdated, but you can now see   
   companies investing in OTT (Over-the-Top) to stream news online via apps. Such   
   apps target the users who want    
   to know news around the world, but at their comfort.   
      
   Kez's case may be extreme, due to the intense violence of the incident,   
   but his experience falls under a growing area of crime. According to a 2018   
   report, one in 12 Brits have reported a burglary after posting on social   
   media, with more than half    
   admitting they had location tagging turned on. Another survey found that 78   
   percent of burglars use social media as a tracking method to see who they want   
   to target. A burglary ring in the US used social media to track wealthy people   
   who had shared their    
   valuable art collections online. One mayoral candidate in Houston was relieved   
   of his works by Andy Warhol, Picasso and Monet after he hosted an art gala at   
   his home, making it easy for thieves to know what he had, and where.   
      
   "Some people think you're posting to show off," he says. "It's not.   
   Why would I want to show off and get stabbed? I post to document my success,   
   to show that people coming from lower working class backgrounds can do it, and   
   to show there's    
   countless ways to make money on the internet. People can still look at all   
   that negatively, but I think that depends on the person. Social media is   
   basically part of the job for me. I'm not saying that posting online   
   isn't real, but you only    
   post the best parts of your life. My Insta is basically like my brand."   
      
   Even though I like the idea of these reps. in theory, I have some concerns.   
   First, I hate to be nitpicky, but after two decades of practicing employment   
   law on the defense side, I have some questions. What's the definition of   
   "sexual misconduct"? What    
   happens of the company handbook or policies do not define "sexual misconduct"?   
   The Salesforce.com agreement did not define it. So how does the target know   
   what to disclose? Next, how should an agreement define "sexual harassment"?   
   What if the allegation    
   would not pass muster under Title VII or even under a more flexible, more   
   generous definition in an employee handbook? When I was in house and drafting   
   policies, a lot of crude behavior could be "harassment" even if it wouldn't   
   survive the pleading    
   requirements for a motion to dismiss. Does a company have to disclose an   
   allegation of harassment that's not legally cognizable? And what about the   
   definition of "allegation"? The Salesforce.com agreement did not define this   
   either. Is it an allegation    
   that has been reported through proper channels? Does the target have to go   
   back to all of the executives' current and former managers and HR personnel as   
   a part of due diligence to make sure there were no allegations that were not   
   investigated or    
   reported through proper channels? What if there were rumors? What if there was   
   a conclusively false allegation (it's rare, but I've seen it)? What if the   
   allegation could not be proved through a thorough, best in class   
   investigation? How does the target    
   disclose that without impugning the reputation of the accused?   
      
   Second, I'm not sure why independent contractors would even be included in   
   these representations because they're not the employees of the company. If an   
   independent contractor harassed one of the target's employees, that   
   independent contractor shouldn't    
   even be an issue in a representation because s/he should not be on the   
   premises. Moreover, the contractor, and not the target company, should be   
   paying any settlement. I acknowledge that a company is responsible for   
   protecting its employees from    
   harassment, including from contractors and vendors. But a company that pays   
   the settlement should ensure that the harasser/contractor can't come near the   
   worksite or employees ever again. If that's the case, why the need for a   
   representation about the    
   contractors? Third, companies often settle for nuisance value or to avoid the   
   cost of litigation even when the investigation results are inconclusive or   
   sometimes before an investigation has ended. How does the company explain that   
   in due diligence? How    
   much detail does the target disclose? Finally, what happens if the company   
   legally destroyed documents as part of an established and enforced document   
   retention and destruction process? Does that excuse disclosure even if someone   
   might have a vague    
   memory of some unfounded allegation five years ago?   
    eebf2c3492   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)