Not at all. Sexual harassment describes different behavior than assault, and is not a crime. The same behavior which may be sexual harassment in one context could be entirely appropriate in another context. And all that is to say, there is a necessary context to sexual harassment.
Scoble claims that any sexual advances he made lacked the necessary context to be considered sexual harassment. He may not even be wrong.
I referenced the UN fact sheet on "What is Sexual Harassment" in another comment but perhaps I should quote it directly;
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature _when_ (emphasis added):
· Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment, or
· Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis
for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
· Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
To me, hairsplitting about whether the conduct technically counts as sexual harassment is more or less beside the point and even getting into it makes the allegations sound more, rather than less, credible.
Maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I didn't think this was about assessing the specific allegations at all, but precisely about understanding the definition of sexual harassment.
