When The Customer Isn't King

[Mulboyne]

[floatr][/floatr]Kyodo via Crisscross: S Korean Sekisui House employee sues customer over discriminatory remarks
A South Korean Sekisui House Ltd employee filed a lawsuit Monday seeking 3 million yen from a customer said to have made discriminatory remarks to him. The home builder said it will cover the litigation expenses of So Mun Pyong, 45, and allow him to attend trials during business hours. So presented the customer with his business card, written in Korean and Japanese characters, in Osaka Prefecture in February last year, the complaint says. The customer then said to So, "How much money are you sending to North Korea? People like you cause abduction problems," according to the complaint.

Very interesting that Sekisui are backing him in this case.

[homesweethome]

Yes it is very interesting that Sekisui is backing him in this.

So if you don't buy from me,or don't hire me, that means you hate my race, so pay!
Very, very interesting business tactic.

All business should be conducted in court. That way somebody's watching over things.

Maybe there is hope.

[amdg]

So if you don't buy from me,or don't hire me, that means you hate my race, so pay!
Very, very interesting business tactic.

HSH, I’] All business should be conducted in court. That way somebody's watching over things.

Maybe there is hope.[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure if I detect sarcasm in there or not. Care to expand on that thought?

[Mulboyne]

With some of the press reports, it seems the the main story is the support he is getting from Sekisui who are saying they are doing so out of "social responsibility". (社会的責任). The incident took place back in February last year so, even allowing for slow court procedures, there were probably attempts to settle this problem through other means. At first I imagined that there was some history between the two men which had ended up with the guy disrupting some Sekisui sales meeting. As it turns out, the Sekisui employee is head of their after-sales service so presumably the contract was signed and the money paid. Housing companies, like construction companies, are known to be fairly conservative institutions so there must be some other factors at work here to get to this outcome. It's possible that the employee is particularly highly valued. It's also possible that the company knows they have sold other units in the same block to Korean-Japanese and would feel exposed to their complaints if they let their man hang out to dry.

It's always a poser for sales managers: if you know your customer has prejudices, then to what extent do you pander to them when you choose the right sales rep? Any sensible manager will always take into account the client's character but you employ your staff on the basis that it is their job to overcome resistance. What I find interesting here is the idea that a company is prepared to stand up and say that there is a level of resistance or prejudice on the customer's side which is not acceptable.

I heard of one example about 10 years ago where a female broker made a formal complaint of sexual harrasment against a trust bank employee who had groped her and tried to get into love hotels. Everyone acknowledged that this kind of behaviour was rife and many had made the same claim before ove the years. But times had changed. When this particular saleswoman made her case, management didn't dismiss her or tell her to shut up, but decided to support her and I suspect some similar sea change has happened at Sekisui.

[kurohinge1]

. . . I heard of one example about 10 years ago where a female broker made a formal complaint of sexual harrasment against a trust bank employee who had groped her and tried to get into love hotels. Everyone acknowledged that this kind of behaviour was rife and many had made the same claim before ove the years. But times had changed. When this particular saleswoman made her case, management didn't dismiss her or tell her to shut up, but decided to support her and I suspect some similar sea change has happened at Sekisui.

Pretty soon you won't even be able to make the work chicks pluck your beard . . . what the?

Japanese man fined for forcing woman to pluck beard

TOKYO, July 27 (Reuters) - A Japanese man has been found guilty of sexual harassment for forcing a female work colleague to pluck his beard.

"Asking a female colleague to pluck your beard is totally inappropriate and illegal," media reports quoted the judge as saying as he ordered the man and the government, as his employer, to pay a total of almost $5,000 in compensation.

According to the lawsuit filed by the woman, the man -- an employee in his 30s in an office affiliated with the Labour Ministry -- had repeatedly asked her to pluck his beard.

The woman, also in her 30s, told him he should do it himself but finally was forced to give in, Kyodo news agency said.

Media reports said the man had been warned previously for sexually harassing the woman, including sending her notes demanding she come on a company trip in her "best bathing suit."

Japanese attitudes towards workplace sexual harassment, long considered to be relatively lax, have grown stricter over the past few years.

I think she might be hearing impaired - surely he wasn't asking her for a "pluck"?

[AssKissinger]

filed a lawsuit Monday seeking 3 million yen

That's crazy as shit! Fuck Sekisui and that Korean wanker. If he wins that'll be crazier than any lawsuit in American history.

[American Oyaji]

AK, 3 million yen is only about $30,000.

And if I was a salesman and a customer called me a nigger in a meeting and MY company let it slide...

Hell Naw

[Greji]

[AssKissinger]

AK, 3 million yen is only about $30,000.

And if I was a salesman and a customer called me a nigger in a meeting and MY company let it slide...

Hell Naw

I damn well know what 3 million yen is. That's a fucking ton of money just for letting someone know you don't like them. Being insulted is a drag but trying wreck someone financially for doing it is just twice as low down. Only $30,000? That's $30,000 more than I got! And I know you're poor so don't give me that [SIZE="7"]BULLSHIT![/SIZE]

[Samurai_Jerk]

AK is right. That is one of the stupidest fucking lawsuits I've ever heard of. It's not like he was being harrassed by a coworker over a period of time and the company failed to do anything. Then he'd have a valid case. Some dick customer made a predujiced remark. Is that against the law?

[kurohinge1]

. . . Being insulted is a drag but . . .

As they say in Japan: "baka ha shinanakya naoranai" (only death can cure a fool). So I doubt that being $30,000 lighter will help the redneck customer become a better person, but also remember this:

[SIZE="3"]"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - [/SIZE]Edmund Burke

[Mulboyne]

I damn well know what 3 million yen is. That's a fucking ton of money just for letting someone know you don't like them.

Is it just the amount of money that you think is out of order? If so, what do you think he should be asking for? I'm almost certain that if he wins any compensation it will be lower than the figure claimed and Sekisui's legal bill will be higher anyway.

We don't know exactly what happened here but there are limits on how much you can be an arsehole. I don't know how slander works in Japan or even if it differs legally from libel but think whether you'd defend him saying what he's alleged to have said to the bloke in, say, a PTA meeting. The fact he was a customer in a commercial transaction should be no special defence.

[AssKissinger]

I think people should be able to say whatever they want to whoever they want wherever they want.

And this example is fucking minor. Goddamn, people are just petrified that someone might say something that hurts someone's feelings.

I don't want to be racist but it makes me want to say 'Go suck a dick gook.' Just to remind myself that people still have the freedom to say whatever the fuck they want. Freedom first! Liberal fascism last. I'd rather be the victim of gaijin racism a million times over than live in a place where a man can't speak his mind. That shit is just pussy. Fucking pussy! If someone started dissing Americans in Japan I'd get in their face and say 'Fuck you Jap' and I don't give a fuck where I am including work but fuck being a puss ass bitch and filing a lawsuit. That's weak. That Korean cunt deserves to get his sorry ass kicked.

[Mulboyne]

I think people should be able to say whatever they want to whoever they want wherever they want.

You said before that Zidane's World Cup headbutt will "always tarnish what I think of Zidane" and at the same time you don't want to support civil remedies to counter derogatory statements. What response would you allow?

[Charles]

I think people should be able to say whatever they want to whoever they want wherever they want.

There's a medical term for a person that says whatever enters his head: psychotic.

[AssKissinger]

You said before that Zidane's World Cup headbutt will "always tarnish what I think of Zidane" and at the same time you don't want to support civil remedies to counter derogatory statements. What response would you allow?

Fuck Zidane. He can't handle his mom being called a terrorist whore because he's a weak ass pussy just like that dork ass Korean fucker. Zidane should have been a man and said something nastier about his mom that's all.

Too bad you were never and will never be slightly punk you conservative cunt Charles.

[kurohinge1]

I think people should be able to say whatever they want to whoever they want wherever they want. . .

That behaviour certainly makes it easier to spot arseholes early, but too often silence by others is misconstrued as tacit approval - see Edmund Burke's quote above.

I'm not afraid to smack a dog if it bites me, so I'm not going to cry over some racist being punished.

[AssKissinger]

That kind of liberalism is so soft and cowardly. It's a fear of freedom.

[kurohinge1]

That kind of liberalism is so soft and cowardly. It's a fear of freedom.

I'm hoping you're not serious, but just in case:

"Soft and cowardly" are those who don't speak up or act when they know something is wrong. It often takes guts to do the right thing.

Freedom is the very thing being protected by opposing racists, bullies and oppressors.

[Mulboyne]

Are you saying there should be no laws at all against slander or libel? If I'm allowed to say whatever I want whenever I want then I'm allowed false advertising. Free speech with no responsibilities is a great thing.

My old man's reaction to anyone badmouthing him would have been to punch them and the law in some countries allows that as a justifiable defence, others don't. Not everyone can easily resort to that, though. It helps if you are roughly the same size and it is even better if you are bigger and stronger so bad luck if you are young, sick or old. Not great for a woman being abused by a man standing a foot taller than her.

Maybe they could copy you and get in the face of their attacker. But that's offensive behaviour and surely we're not suggesting that the only counter to offensiveness and violence is the same in kind.

A civil society finds ways to help its weakest members defend themselves. If you want to defame someone then you should be prepared to live with the consequences rather than just have everyone else live with the consequences of your freedom to defame them.

We don't know what happened in the exchange between these two guys. If there were direct accusations then we aren't talking about a simple case of "I don't like you" statements. It's only a civil case so the police aren't breathing down anyone's neck and putting them in jail for saying what they think.

[Kuang_Grade]

I think AK is coming from the more absolutist, "if you can't be patently offensive then you don't actually have free speech" viewpoint. I'm not arguing his point, but I think this is where he's coming from....Worrying about the offended's right not to be offended is dangerous game, since its up to the government to decide which group is offended party (since it is the one who enforces the law) and that society is better off overall with the possibility of hurt feelings vs. some misguided attempt to make sure everyone smiles happily along lest they get bankrupted by lawsuits or being hit with Anti-Social Behavior Orders (who decides what's anti-social? What's to stop them from calling civil protests at some stage down the road anti-social). I don't know how far the freedom riders in the US would have gotten if lawyers started to go after their family assets for defaming southern bus lines or if courts ASBO'd them off buses. And more often than not, it is not going to be the small party filing the lawsuit, its going to be the more wealthy party who can afford spending the money in order to shut down someone they don't like (such as in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP).

[Mulboyne]

It is clear that society can't function effectively if its members can say what they want whenever they want with impunity. An example that often crops up is that of testimony in court. You are free to lie under oath but society requires the ability to punish you for doing so otherwise court proceedings become worthless.

Looking specifically at defamation, I would agree that many states are too intrusive with laws against discrimination, bad taste, pornography, obscenity and blasphemy. I've been horrified in Britain that religion has received greater protection under recent legislation to outlaw "incitement to racial hatred". I would prefer to see much of this shifted to the civil realm and some removed entirely.

I do see the need for civil remedies. Name-calling is one thing but accusations are another, albeit there can be a good deal of overlap as when you call someone a liar. I don't know the grounds for the Sekisui employee's complaint beyond the skimpy outline I've read but I have no trouble in believing it at least possible that the defendant was intentionally malicious and discriminatory. Many parts of Japanese society are rife with bullying and intimidation and victims have rarely been able to defend themselves.

I like the fact that Japan is not a litigious country - there are a number of social institutions available to arbitrate without needing to resort to the courts. Some conflicts, though, have to go to the courts first for society as a whole to recognize that there a new issues which these other institutions are required to resolve. If the Sekisui guy wins, I don't think it means a lot of new court cases but rather that local tribunals change their terms of reference.

One of the reasons I was interested in these two cases is that there have been concerns in the media that the rise in defamation lawsuits is threatening press freedoms in Japan. I would start to get concerned if the courts began to grant huge compensation judgements. I think there used to be a limit of around 5 million yen and that was rarely reached.

[kamome]

Even in the US, where free speech is a constitutional right, it has long been recognized that you can't "say whatever you want whenever you want". The US Supreme Court has labeled various types of speech as unprotected - the most relevant example for this discussion being "fighting words" or those words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

I would say that a racist or bigoted comment directed at an individual qualifies as "fighting words" and that a society should condemn it if only to prevent further violence. I believe the doctrine allows hate speech in general, i.e., not directed at a particular individual, so it's not so overbroad.

[omae mona]

Even in the US, where free speech is a constitutional right, it has long been recognized that you can't "say whatever you want whenever you want". The US Supreme Court has labeled various types of speech as unprotected - the most relevant example for this discussion being "fighting words" or those words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

I would say that a racist or bigoted comment directed at an individual qualifies as "fighting words" and that a society should condemn it if only to prevent further violence. I believe the doctrine allows hate speech in general, i.e., not directed at a particular individual, so it's not so overbroad.

What you write about there being unprotected speech is true. But it seems like the case in question here is very, very far from meeting the criteria in the U.S. - which have been narrowed over the years. Examples at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=fighting_words all seem to show use of actual "naughty words". And even in most of those cases, the speech was classified as protected. In our Sekisui case, it doesn't sound like the customer did any name calling (e.g. "gook"). Actually, I think what the customer did was much more insulting than simple name calling. But based on the examples I saw, I don't believe for a second that this would have been construed as unprotected speech in the U.S. (assuming the quote in the original post here is correct).

Then again, this is all moot... because we are talking about Japan!

[amdg]

[Charles]

Just as a matter of interest Kamome, do you feel that your constitutional right to freedom of speech in the US is a stronger right of free speech than any other country has?

There's a bad old joke about that from the Cold War era. An American is talking to a Russian, he says "America is the greatest country in the world, we have Freedom of Speech, so I have the right to stand in front of the White House and denounce the American Government!" The Russian says "We have Freedom of Speech too, I have the right to stand in front of the Kremlin and denounce the American Government too!"

I don't know about "stronger rights" than any other country, but AFAIK Freedom of Speech is absolute. There isn't even an Official Secrets Act like in England, so there are no prior restraints even on publishing state secrets. But that doesn't mean you are exempt from the consequences of your speech.

I remember a monologue by Dennis Miller about the Constitution. Shortly after 9/11, he said something to the effect that "In America, we have the First Amendment that protects our right to Freedom of Speech. But right behind that, we have the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms. So you better watch what you say, asshole!"
That was when I realized Dennis Miller had gone insane.

[kamome]

[quote="amdg"]bolding mine

Just as a matter of interest Kamome, do you feel that your constitutional right to freedom of speech in the US is a stronger right of free speech than any other country has? Not challenging you here at all, I just want to get an idea of what people in the US believe is significant about a ‘]
The American right to free speech is not necessarily stronger than such right in other countries. I said "even" because it is a right that is explictily recognized in the founding document of the United States. In countries that either do not have a Constitution-like document or do not have explicitly enumerated rights in a fundamental document, I would venture that there is less guarantee against intrusion by the government on those rights.

Constitutional rights are generally regarded in the US as basic and inviolable (although I think that is debatable - just look at the all the ways the US Supreme Court has poked holes in the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.) But if the right is in the Constitution, it puts severe limitations on attempted restrictions by the government on the activities of American citizens.

[jingai]

The American right to free speech is not necessarily stronger than such right in other countries. I said "even" because it is at least a right that is explictily recognized in the founding document of the United States.

You would be wrong on a few counts.

First- freedom of speech was left out of the Constitution (the "Founding document" you are referring to?) as some colonies had their own Bill of Rights. It took a while to get the Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution. This is why freedom of speech is the "First Amendment."
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Freedom of speech isn't absolute as Charles said- there are restrictions where freedom of speech runs tramples over others' liberty (shouting fire in a theater, making terroristic threats, sedition, etc). However, we don't have speech codes like Germany. You can be a Nazi in America, salute Hitler, drape yourself in the Swatztika and not go to jail.

The Supreme Court reserves its most skeptical, restrictive judgment ("strict scrutiny") for attempts to infringe upon freedom of speech. There has to be some weighty reason for the court to uphold gov't attempts to intrude upon this speech.

Quick google search turned up:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States

[kamome]

You would be wrong on a few counts.

First- freedom of speech was left out of the Constitution (the "Founding document" you are referring to?) as some colonies had their own Bill of Rights. It took a while to get the Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution. This is why freedom of speech is the "First Amendment."
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Freedom of speech isn't absolute as Charles said- there are restrictions where freedom of speech runs tramples over others' liberty (shouting fire in a theater, making terroristic threats, sedition, etc). However, we don't have speech codes like Germany. You can be a Nazi in America, salute Hitler, drape yourself in the Swatztika and not go to jail.

The Supreme Court reserves its most skeptical, restrictive judgment ("strict scrutiny") for attempts to infringe upon freedom of speech. There has to be some weighty reason for the court to uphold gov't attempts to intrude upon this speech.

Quick google search turned up:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States

What argument are you making? First you say that freedom of speech is not absolute in the US, which is what I already said above. Then you contradict that statement by mentioning that attempts to restrict speech must survive strict scrutiny - the toughest to overcome of all the tests used by the Supreme Court to analyze infringements on fundamental freedoms - the other tests being "intermediate scrutiny" and "rational basis".

By the way, the fact that the Bill of Rights amended the Constitution does not make the rights enumerated therein any less fundamental. They are still a part of the founding document that is the Constitution and haven't themselves been amended since they were adopted. And it didn't take long at all to get them adopted - they were adopted by the First Congress in 1789.

[Charles]

Freedom of speech isn't absolute as Charles said- there are restrictions where freedom of speech runs tramples over others' liberty (shouting fire in a theater, making terroristic threats, sedition, etc).

Wrong. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921. Note that the Sedition Act never imposed prior restraint upon speech, it only imposed penalties after the fact. Your right to Free Speech is absolute, but the Government may impose penalties after you speak.

Now, having said this, here's the pop quiz: what is the ONE exception to prior restraint laws? What is the ONE thing the government can (and WILL) stomp down on you HARD if you even attempt to publish it?