To me, it doesn’t look like there is any physical contact in that photo. Is that supposed to matter? Physical contact would make it worse (so in that sense it “matters”), but it’s demeaning and a very crude violation of her privacy to pose for a pic like that, even without physical contact. I can see where a woman would “not be amused”.
I have heard “groped” used in the past tense of an act that definitely happened, case closed. So, are we talking about theoretical groping, or telekinetic? Could you “phone it in”?
But pantomimed groping is groping, the same as an direct physical contact? Well, OK, John, I guess. Sorta kinda.
Is the line to call something assault and to punish as assault that “a woman would ‘not be amused’”?
Should all offenses of demeaning an individual woman be treated with zero tolerance and expulsion from public service, molesting a 14 year old the same as an unwanted sloppy kiss and crude and rude unfunny joke without actual physical contact?
A fine sounding sentiment, but I don’t see how it would be ‘enforced’ in the real world. For example while the voters of non-Alabama will in fact have no direct say on whether Moore is elected, they do have IMO a clear right to tell their Senators they don’t want him seated if he is elected. Senators have some duty to constituents besides doing whatever they please while in office then just appearing back at the ballot box in 6 yrs to be evaluated. Besides which many of them might simply feel it’s not right (or in their interest, anyway) to have Moore seated, and that’s what are taking back to their voters when their term is up.
Also the whole discussion of Moore v Franken (which it seems to often come down to, logic aside) tends to ignore the quite different situations AL and MN voters face. AL voters had this thrown at them after a primary and just before a general election. MN voters have relatively all the time in the world to consider Franken before primary and general in 2018 when he’s up. Many AL voters in fact might vote for Moore on the idea it wasn’t fair for the media to time this story this way (the timing might or might not have had any element of intent IMO, but you’re not going to convince most AL Republicans it didn’t), and perhaps they are also relying on Mitch McConnell’s statement he’ll have Moore expelled from the Senate if elected, which would mean a vote for Moore is really a vote to let the AL gov name another Republican.
If you mean the media (reacting to the story, not the investigative reporters necessarily) and internet chatterers at large spend more time on this stuff than they should, OK I guess. But I don’t see what’s really going to be done about it. Also your final paragraph implies to me a populist/left view of the country’s problems. Some things you mentioned are objectively problems, others are debatable, especially as to relative ranking. And once we got into remedies, forget it. The country is divided in large degree because people disagree on important issues, not mainly because of disagreements like whether Franken can be compared to Moore.
Firstly, I would not call and have not called what happened in the photo “assault”. I can’t speak for what happened before or after the photo was taken. Secondly, I’m not sure why you ignored the part of my post where I said “it’s demeaning and a very crude violation of her privacy to pose for a pic like that”. Still not assault, but behavior deserving of condemnation.
I’ve said several times in this thread that I don’t think Franken should have to resign, and I’m sure I’m on record in one thread or another saying Moore’s actions >> Franken’s. Not that I expect you to have read or to remember everything I’ve posted, but do you think I would have answered otherwise?
Well the “is it supposed to matter?” bit does read to me as you suggesting the response should be the same. Sorry if I read your meaning incorrectly.
Not sure that there was much violation of her privacy. The violation was using her as a prop in a demeaning, crude, and frankly mean spirited manner. That is something I would disapprove of even a comic doing and would condemn a Senator doing. If say she was really out, having taken some drugs to help her sleep on the flight, and her knew it and was actually molesting her and this was evidence of him as a comic doing so, like those excuses for humans that livestreamed their raping someone, then this would be grounds for more than condemnation but a criminal offense that should result in more than resignation.
The point is that yes it does matter. The difference between a comic’s crude mean spirited demeaning joke and sexual molestation by someone with power over a person they have that power over is not trivial or only in some “sense” but very substantial. The tendency of many, it seems not you but many, to conflate them all together trivializes the more significant to my read.
…the shadow on the right hand is caused by camera flash.
I’ve rather unscientifically attempted to recreate the photo with a piece of white paper. DSLR with flash above the camera. (No, I can’t be bothered posting it here, feel free to try it yourself.)
A photo both touching the paper and not touching the paper matches the shadows of the right hand. As a professional photographer, IMHO it is impossible to tell whether or not the right hand is touching or not. Moving the hand away from the paper by a tiny fraction produced identical shadows.
For the purposes of debate I’ve made the assumption that the hand is not touching. But it is entirely reasonable (IMHO) for Tweeden to look at that photo and assume she was groped, because that’s what it looks like. She first saw the picture 11 years ago and didn’t look at the photo with the “skeptical mind” that thousands of people are looking at it now are.
And IMHO it is unreasonable to claim (as some have in this thread) that groping didn’t happen on the basis of this photo: Franken hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) explicitly denied touching her in the photo, the photo evidence is indeterminate, the photo is just a snapshot and we don’t know what happened immediately before or immediately after the photo was taken.
“Groping” in terms of every other accusation of sexual abuse or harassment that involves groping. The type that goes on millions of times a year but we almost never have a photographic record of. I think that it is incredible that we have this photo that clearly and unambiguously does not show Franken in a good light and people like you are using it to mock and belittle Tweeden’s experience.
She was dressed rather provocatively, what with the flak jacket and all.
OK but I did clarify, if only parenthetically, that it matters in the sense that touching would have been worse. My “does it matter” was in relation to quibbling about whether you can tell if he’s touching her or not in the photo. Yes, touching would be worse, but the photo as is is bad enough that no one should be defending Franken for it, and I never used the term “groped” anyway.
I have defended Franken for the photo. Right here in this thread back on page 12. People claiming the picture shows Franken pretending to grope Leeann Tweeden are missing the joke. It’s not the most tasteful joke but it’s not an example of “punching down”. He is pretending to fail to grope her. The joke is literally on Franken as the incompetent pervert and not on Tweeden the defenseless victim.
Has Franken commented further to confirm Ms Tweeden’s version of events? In his apology, and earlier, he stated he remembered the rehearsal differently. Unless there has been a new statement the only facts that we know are not in dispute are that the photo was taken and a rehearsal took place.
For me these details are the heart of the problem. If he really did force himself on her and then mistreat her afterwards then that’s disgusting and he should resign, IMO. But lets not rush to judgement.
Now that I manderstand it from that perspective, she should apologize to him!!
I agree with you completely—the joke Franken was trying to make was on himself. He was the butt of the joke, not Tweeden. “Look at me, I’m a moron who’s all gleeful because I think I’m going to cop a feel through body armor!” is the general jist of it.
But of course it was stupid in that he should have known that many people would either genuinely see it as an example of groping, or disingenuously pretend to do so for partisan gain. (He may not have known at the time that he’d be entering politics.)
It’s also true that he was using another human being as a prop in the joke he was making on himself. That’s always ethically questionable. Had he asked a woman to pose as if she were asleep and then taken the photo, that would have been something slightly better, though still ill-advised in that it referenced sexual assault. If he wanted to make a “look at me, I’m a moron” joke, he should have found another way.
But as you say, the serious issues are the alleged use of tongue during the agreed-upon kiss, and what Melanie Morgan claimed (stalking, essentially). Those incidents do merit serious investigation.
What about the left hand? Not enough time, and you were going to toss this all aside anyway?
So, she didn’t use a “skeptical mind”, so I can’t? No fair? How does that work?
So, we’re back to the photo evidence now, which doesn’t matter?
Which does not necessarily involve touching, direct physical contact? Does “kicking” mean feet?
(emphasis added)
Seriously? You needed that? Well, feel better now? Hope so.
Oy vey. I actually took another, closer look at that photo, and I’ve changed my mind. I think it’s too difficult to tell whether he is touching her or not. But if he’s not touching her, it’s like the kid in the car whose mother says “Stop touching your sister”, so the kid puts his finger 1/4" from his sister’s nose and exclaims “I’m not touching her!”
But it really is moot since the joke is on Franken. That would be a double Oy Vey.
…humour is subjective, not objective. How you see the joke, how Tweeden sees the joke, how I see the joke and how Franken explains the joke can all be different things, and none of us are “objectively correct.”
No he hasn’t: which is my point entirely.
Well yeah, but we aren’t going to get those details are we. The most we will probably ever get from Franken is that his recollection of events is different (we might even get his version of events), but he understands where Tweeden is coming from. And we will all still be “none the wiser.” At this point “lets not rush to judgement” is nothing but a cliche. Not much is going to change. Why not make a “judgement” now?
Once again, I concur with CandidGamera with their post earlier in the thread. Franken has apologised. Tweeden has accepted. The senate should still investigate.
…if the right hand is touching, then what the left hand is doing isn’t relevant.
Eleven years later, in the comfort of your living room in front of your personal computer, you are free to do whatever the fuck you like. I was putting things into context. You have the privilege of looking at the photo with a skeptical eye because you don’t have a stake in the matter. Tweeden doesn’t have that privilege.
The photo evidence clearly and unambiguously reveal that Al Franken is a bit of a dick. The photo evidence does matter. But the photo evidence doesn’t say what you think it says.
WTF does kicking have to do with anything? If you want to know what “groping” means I suggest you look up a dictionary.
Not particularly. You didn’t concede that you’ve done anything wrong. What that means that we as a society have a fuck-load of work to do.
Thanks! 
This is one of the more … out-there … interpretations of the photo that I’ve read. Did you come up with this interpretation on your own or read about it somewhere?
A simple “Boy, I hadn’t considered it from that perspective. I was wrong to say that the photo was completely indefensible.” would have been plenty.
But you do you.
I don’t think you can be a professional comedian if you refuse to do jokes that some people are going to find offensive. Franken and Tweeden were there to entertain the troops. Is this a joke that works with that audience? I would say so even though obviously it’s not great for his current political career.
I don’t see why. Tweeden appears to be in public and thus have no reasonable expectation of privacy. What’s wrong with including her in a joke on someone else?
I am all for an investigation. Lets not jump to conclusions.