Rabid Anti-Feminism Strikes Again

SixteenBlue wrote:

Zane, that's not how professional behavior is defined. In fact, if it's considered OK because the recipient likes it (i.e. she consented and they got married) then it becomes an even more hostile environment for anyone that doesn't like it. There's now pressure that THEIR behavior effects the punishment of the person in question, which is f*cking asinine.

I didn't realize there was a golden rule for professional behavior that applies universally. At what point in the origin of the cosmos did this become set as natural law? All human interaction is defined subjectively and between the people interacting. Also, once again, if it were actually a problem, it could have been reported. Instead, they got married. So once again, human interaction isn't set in stone. What applies in one place may not apply in others.

Seth wrote:

Really if it had been Adrian Richards, the dude, who tweeted a pic saying "dude these jokes aren't cool..." would we even be having this conversation?

We would be having this conversation if Adrian Richards attempted to turn this into a crusade against sexism as Adria has.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Zane, that's not how professional behavior is defined. In fact, if it's considered OK because the recipient likes it (i.e. she consented and they got married) then it becomes an even more hostile environment for anyone that doesn't like it. There's now pressure that THEIR behavior effects the punishment of the person in question, which is f*cking asinine.

I didn't realize there was a golden rule for professional behavior that applies universally. At what point in the origin of the cosmos did this become set as natural law? All human interaction is defined subjectively and between the people interacting. Also, once again, if it were actually a problem, it could have been reported. Instead, they got married. So once again, human interaction isn't set in stone. What applies in one place may not apply in others.

Actually, any business worth working for has golden rules that apply to everyone in the office. And they have rules against behavior like this for the exact reason that it doesn't work for everyone. You're so out of left field here it's kind of amazing.

Edit: When you define what is OK by how the victim responds, you have shifted all blame to the victim. "She's ok with it, why aren't you? What's wrong with you?" That's total bullsh*t and I wouldn't work anywhere that thought that way.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Actually, any business worth working for has golden rules that apply to everyone in the office. And they have rules against behavior like this for the exact reason that it doesn't work for everyone. You're so out of left field here it's kind of amazing.

So all businesses have the same rules? Sorry, but that's not my experience. And once again, what is acceptable is ultimately up to the people engaging each other. So in the situation like slinger's brother-in-law, it was acceptable to her for him to do what he did. If she didn't like it, she could have reported it because the avenue was there for her to do so. You are ignoring reality here.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Edit: When you define what is OK by how the victim responds, you have shifted all blame to the victim. "She's ok with it, why aren't you? What's wrong with you?" That's total bullsh*t and I wouldn't work anywhere that thought that way.

I'm pretty sure that my sister and, by extension, my two nephews would object to being portrayed as "victims" of my brother-in-law.

OG_slinger wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Edit: When you define what is OK by how the victim responds, you have shifted all blame to the victim. "She's ok with it, why aren't you? What's wrong with you?" That's total bullsh*t and I wouldn't work anywhere that thought that way.

I'm pretty sure that my sister and, by extension, my two nephews would object to being portrayed as "victims" of my brother-in-law.

Ugh. That's completely missing my point and not what I am saying.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

We would be having this conversation if Adrian Richards attempted to turn this into a crusade against sexism as Adria has.

She didn't attempt to turn this into a crusade against sexism. She tweeted and she wrote a blog post describing her feelings. She didn't exhort anyone to rise up against the man. She didn't even paint the guys who she was offended by as particularly evil. She even provided some good context for her decision to tweet about these guys.

It's the tone of your statement and many others like it that I read yesterday on various sites that prompted me to put up this topic on GWJ. I was wondering if my mental compass was out of whack. I have seen a lot of overreaction and anger directed at Richards which I feel is out of balance with what she did and what happened next.

A lot has been made about her posting a photo of these guys without their consent, and publicly shaming them, but was it really her intent to shame them? From her account, it reads more like she was trying to contact the pycon organizers in the most expedient way she could think of while she was sitting in the middle of a conference presentation.

For me, the story here is not what happened. The story is the reaction to what happened. And even here on GWJ in P&C, some reactions strike me as needlessly harsh.

BadKen wrote:

She didn't attempt to turn this into a crusade against sexism. She tweeted and she wrote a blog post describing her feelings. She didn't exhort anyone to rise up against the man. She didn't even paint the guys who she was offended by as particularly evil. She even provided some good context for her decision to tweet about these guys.

Here's what she said in her post:

Adria Richards wrote:

I saw a photo on main stage of a little girl who had been in the Young Coders workshop.

I realized I had to do something or she would never have the chance to learn and love programming because the ass clowns behind me would make it impossible for her to do so.

I think it is also important to point out that, if I read things right, the con organizers had laid out a number of ways in which they could be contacted. She chose, for whatever reason, to ignore those techniques.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Ugh. That's completely missing my point and not what I am saying.

You mean somebody can misinterpret what someone else said even when they're both actively trying to communicate with each other?

In her blog post about the incident she says her trigger for doing what she did:

I saw a photo on main stage of a little girl who had been in the Young Coders workshop.
I realized I had to do something or she would never have the chance to learn and love programming because the ass clowns behind me would make it impossible for her to do so.

I don't understand how publicly shaming two guys is going to help women in technology. How would this little girl not have a chance to learn and love programming?

I agree. It's too bad that Richards was offended by what she overheard, and that those guys weren't more sensitive to their surroundings. It's also too bad that in a moment of righteous anger, she decided to address that by acting like a colossal bully and shaming those guys in front of the entire Internet instead of just talking to them like a reasonable adult.

Here I thought the discussion would have focused more on how a polyp of hate criminals got a company to kowtow to their diseased will.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Here I thought the discussion would have focused more on how a polyp of hate criminals got a company to kowtow to their diseased will.

I think we'd find not much more than agreement there, and it has been brought that far as much as that topic is concerned.

Ziff-hausered!

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Here I thought the discussion would have focused more on how a polyp of hate criminals got a company to kowtow to their diseased will.

Probably because there's not much to discuss. It sucks, everyone knows it sucks, what is there really to say about that?

Instead it's all these other issues that rational, decent people can still disagree over. Like, do we prohibit behavior that's basically okay because allowing it make possible behavior that is not okay. OG asked a really good question: "Viewed from a personal perspective, he romantically pursued my sister and successfully wooed her. Viewed from a purely professional perspective, he created a hostile work environment and was one visit to HR away from being fired for sexual harassment. Which is a more accurate view of what happened?"

Could it be that the former is more accurate, yet accuracy isn't the determining factor here? Maybe sexism in a professional setting is like who is at fault when someone gets (no pun intended) rear-ended in a car accident. Even if the person in front was driving like an idiot, it's really hard to shift the blame onto them. Maybe that's the model we should adopt for sexism in a professional setting. Less accurate, but it's worth sacrificing accuracy for a greater good.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Edit: When you define what is OK by how the victim responds, you have shifted all blame to the victim. "She's ok with it, why aren't you? What's wrong with you?" That's total bullsh*t and I wouldn't work anywhere that thought that way.

The converse? is also true and also complete insanity, you're defining what is NOT OKAY by how the victim responds, delivering a tremendous power which can and has been abused w.r.t. a few sexual harassment cases. My schools from middle school onward have had sexual harassment rules in place and they're just too damn vague. My point is that real sexual harassment is not that hard to find.

Seth wrote:

I suppose the followup question is -- how many death and rape threats have Alex Reid and mr-hank received in light of this?

I'm quoting quite a ways back here but I haven't been near a computer for a while. This is a straw man, as are the arguments of "this never would have happened if it wasn't a woman who complained." She absolutely didn't deserve those threats and the people who made it should die in a fire but that has no bearing on whether her actions in dealing with the issue were appropriate.

Seth wrote:

Yeah that's the crux of it. "Bitch yelled too loud" seems to be the running theme here. Pretty astonishing, especially in a GWJ space.

This too is also unfair and way out of line. I'm really sick and tired of having snarky insinuations leveled that I'm a mysoginyst because I dared to criticize a woman. There's a ton of sexism in many industries and that's completely wrong and disgusting. The guys who made the jokes in her presence were stupid and I have no sympathy for them. Not sure if they should have been fired but thems the breaks when you choose to say something dumb. But what she did in response (publicly tweeting a photo of them as well as many others who had nothing to do with it) rather than availing herself of the advertised ways to deal with it was immature, unprofessional and yes, being a bully. I don't care if you are man, woman or otherwise, unless you've been given no other choice (which does happen but not in this case), that is a stupid way to deal with a situation like that. You can disagree with that if you want but don't insinuate that I'm misogynistic for it. There are a lot of people wrong in this situation and yes, she is among them, as has been demonstrated in other things already linked to in this thread.

I think Amanda Blum's post lays out the best argument in regards to the whole of this situation. I do highly recommend people read the entire thing. None of the incredibly negative response Richards has received is justified and it shows just how much further many members of the male gender still have to evolve. We can judge those people harshly and I think we should but I think her own actions prior to that can also be judged on their own.

OG_slinger wrote:

My friends and I had decided forking someone's repo is a new form of flattery (the highest form being implementation) and we were excited about one of the presenters projects; a friend said "I would fork that guys repo" The sexual context was applied by Adria, and not us.

So they were making jokes about "big dongles" and then "I would fork that guys repo" and we're supposed to believe there was no sexual connotation to that? Yeah, sure.

After looking over this story I have the following thoughts.

1. We have to stop calling this sexism. Sexism is when you treat members of a gender differently in a damaging way. Not hiring someone because of their gender is sexism. Making an off color joke is not sexism. At best it is inappropriate in a public context, at worst it is harassment if it is directed at someone specifically.

2. Human beings are not robots. In a conference setting where two friends are conversing and not even addressing (or meaning to address) the third party this is not sexism or harassment. That their conversation was overheard shows lack of situation awareness and inappropriate behavior in public, nothing more sinister than that.

3. When faced with behavior in this setting that one would find inappropriate, there are several actions that could be taken:
a. Inform the people that you can hear what their saying, and it is inappropriate and to please quiet down.
b. Simply move to a different row where you won't be distracted by it.
c. Inform conference staff of the incident.

This woman decided to take pictures, tweet, and blog about it, outing a 3rd party conversation not directed at her to the public? What was her motive for such an action? It would be quite easy to say it was revenge motivated.

So here are some questions that I'm going to be interested in seeing the answers to:

1. Because you are offended, do you have an open license to exact whatever retribution you want? (public pics, public slander)

2. Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy between the two men? If so, does Richard's reaction, even though she felt offense, constitute a violation of privacy? If it doesn't, does that mean anyone should be able to record you or photograph you just by virtue of you being in public and post it anywhere in whatever context?

3. Does the guy who got fired have cause for legal action against Richards? He does have a right to say what he wants (first amendment) no matter how stupid it is. It is clear that with the public tweet, pics, and post that she intended to spark a negative outcome against these men. That is malice. His employer is probably at-will and has a right to fire him, but he may have a right to sue her for defamation since he is now labeled a sexist when a private joke doesn't make you a sexist.

4. Since she was there on behalf of SendGrid, if she is successfully sued, would they be liable too? The employer is frequently held accountable for employee conduct.

Regardless of anything else, I feel like there is a big difference between inappropriate and harassment.

Valmorian wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

My friends and I had decided forking someone's repo is a new form of flattery (the highest form being implementation) and we were excited about one of the presenters projects; a friend said "I would fork that guys repo" The sexual context was applied by Adria, and not us.

So they were making jokes about "big dongles" and then "I would fork that guys repo" and we're supposed to believe there was no sexual connotation to that? Yeah, sure.

In the same Reddit post he plainly states that the dongle comment was sexual in nature and apologized. Only the fork comment was taken out of context.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
Seth wrote:

I suppose the followup question is -- how many death and rape threats have Alex Reid and mr-hank received in light of this?

I'm quoting quite a ways back here but I haven't been near a computer for a while. This is a straw man, as are the arguments of "this never would have happened if it wasn't a woman who complained." She absolutely didn't deserve those threats and the people who made it should die in a fire but that has no bearing on whether her actions in dealing with the issue were appropriate.

It does have a bearing on the discussion of rabid anti-feminism, though, which I think might be part of the thread title.

On the other stuff: I agree that public shaming isn't the way to handle things. Same reasons I stated before in the Internet vigilantism thread: it's not an appropriate way to deal with things, whether the target is someone in a position of relative power or in a position of relative weakness. I don't want it being done to anybody, because it's no more right that it be done to someone with a bad attitude by a blogger for the purpose of raising awareness of misogyny than that it be done to someone vulnerable going through insane levels of social stress by a journalist who "disagrees with her lifestyle".

(I am tempted to go dig up that Internet vigilantism thread and see if the same people are generally on the same side in this thread that they were in that one.)

If you have a problem with an individual's behavior, handle that in private by going to people responsible for handling things (whether it be event organizers or employers or what-have-you). If you have a problem with a pattern of behavior, talk about it in public to raise awareness but keep individual details out of it. (Unless, of course, you are publicly replying to their public speech in the same forum where they're speaking: Internet post to Internet post, etc. Then addressing them directly is fair game.)

On the other other subject:

OG_slinger wrote:

Viewed from a personal perspective, he romantically pursued my sister and successfully wooed her. Viewed from a purely professional perspective, he created a hostile work environment and was one visit to HR away from being fired for sexual harassment. Which is a more accurate view of what happened?

Both interpretations are equally correct at the same time--and if she had asked him to stop pursuing her even once, and he did it even one time after that, and she had complained to HR, he should have been sh*t-canned. That's how things work. Presumably she responded in more of a "not that interested, but flattered" way that left things open. However, no one should ever [em]expect[/em] that it is acceptable to romantically pursue a co-worker. Get told just once "I don't think this is appropriate" (or [em]anything[/em] along those lines), and that had better be the end of it.

Hypatian wrote:

If you have a problem with an individual's behavior, handle that in private by going to people responsible for handling things (whether it be event organizers or employers or what-have-you). If you have a problem with a pattern of behavior, talk about it in public to raise awareness but keep individual details out of it. (Unless, of course, you are publicly replying to their public speech in the same forum where they're speaking: Internet post to Internet post, etc. Then addressing them directly is fair game.)

Amen.

bandit0013 wrote:

1. Because you are offended, do you have an open license to exact whatever retribution you want? (public pics, public slander)

No. Personally (and I am very aware that I am speaking from approaching middle-aged white guy status, so I fully expect my opinion to be dismissed) there needs to be some level of similarity between the two. I think one must also consider the level of the offense. At best, the comments about dongles are stupid, immature and juvenile. I think one would be hard-pressed to label it sexist. I see as being on the same level as the finger -> butt meme here on GWJ.

2. Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy between the two men? If so, does Richard's reaction, even though she felt offense, constitute a violation of privacy? If it doesn't, does that mean anyone should be able to record you or photograph you just by virtue of you being in public and post it anywhere in whatever context?

They had no expectation of privacy. They were in a packed conference hall sitting surrounded by people. If they thought that no-one was going to overhear them, they are dumber than I thought. In a situation like that, expect that the people around you can hear everything you say. Now, that being said, they were not in public. They were in a private conference. Unless the enrollment form included a clause about anyone can take pictures, etc..., they had a reasonable expectation that the only pictures that would be taken of them would be by the organizing committee, or their representatives. In addition, I suspect that they would expect waivers to be signed if there was the expectation that their picture would be used in some sort of publicity.

3. Does the guy who got fired have cause for legal action against Richards? He does have a right to say what he wants (first amendment) no matter how stupid it is. It is clear that with the public tweet, pics, and post that she intended to spark a negative outcome against these men. That is malice. His employer is probably at-will and has a right to fire him, but he may have a right to sue her for defamation since he is now labeled a sexist when a private joke doesn't make you a sexist.

I am a Canadian, so my amendment thoughts may be fuzzy, but the 1st amendment only prevents you from having your speech stopped by the government. A private body, as the organizing committee, can make whatever limitations they want, up to and including ridonkulous things like no using the letter "e". Now, the US is the land of the Lawsuit, so he could definitely take legal action against her. However, many employers would be very wary of hiring someone who files a lawsuit like this. It would pre-emptively burn many, many bridges, especially in todays climate where many companies are becoming more aware of situations like this and the need to prevent it.

In a couple of months, the furor around this will die away and be forgotten, especially as his comments, as I mentioned above, were much more in the realm of juvenile and immature as opposed to sexist. If he fires off a lawsuit, it sticks around in the public eye.

4. Since she was there on behalf of SendGrid, if she is successfully sued, would they be liable too? The employer is frequently held accountable for employee conduct.

I would be surprised if they could be held liable. If it is *clearly* not what her job responsibilities are, and the company had no reasonable expectation that she would do something like that or that she would be placed in a situation where she could have a chance to do something like that. Now, if they new that the use of comic sans in presentations drove her into a hulk-like rage, and they sent her to a grade school science fair, they could easily be held liable.

bandit0013 wrote:

2. Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy between the two men? If so, does Richard's reaction, even though she felt offense, constitute a violation of privacy? If it doesn't, does that mean anyone should be able to record you or photograph you just by virtue of you being in public and post it anywhere in whatever context?

This is an interesting side question for me. I remember a time not that long ago when it was considered an inappropriate invasion of privacy to have your photo taken with someone's camera phone without your consent and this was before you could post it online with the push of a button. Again, not to defend the guys or their actions but when did posting people's photos without their consent just become a thing people do? Just as a whole, not even in this instance specifically?

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

2. Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy between the two men? If so, does Richard's reaction, even though she felt offense, constitute a violation of privacy? If it doesn't, does that mean anyone should be able to record you or photograph you just by virtue of you being in public and post it anywhere in whatever context?

This is an interesting side question for me. I remember a time not that long ago when it was considered an inappropriate invasion of privacy to have your photo taken with someone's camera phone without your consent and this was before you could post it online with the push of a button. Again, not to defend the guys or their actions but when did posting people's photos without their consent just become a thing people do? Just a whole, not even in this instance specifically?

People are trying to rely on the public space vs. private space and tasteful vs. tacky in addressing the issue of invasion of privacy, but those are the wrong arguments.

The U.S. courts, including the SCOTUS have been very clear: the issue is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." You have to meet two criteria to invoke privacy:

1. An individual has a subjective expectation of privacy.
2. Society recognizes an individual's subjective expectation of privacy as reasonable.

It is unreasonable for anyone to expect that while visiting Disneyland, which is a private company operating a private venue on privately-held land, you have an expectation of privacy will walking down Main Street USA or waiting in line for Haunted Mansion. It is reasonable, however, to have an expectation of privacy when going into a stall in the restroom near the entrance to Tomorrowland.

It's also unreasonable for someone eating at a private restaurant to invoke an expectation of privacy while sitting on the patio of the restaurant that faces a public street.

And it would be unreasonable for anyone to have an expectation of privacy at a large conference like PyCon. I doubt a court would even entertain a privacy violation for photos taken at a tech conference where the vast majority of people have smartphones and are taking photos all over the place. Anyone who would expect to attend a venue with a large number of people (the PyCon website says they closed registration after 2,500 people registered for the conference) and have an expectation of privacy is being foolish.

Now, if PyCon had up signs that said "No photography for any reason!" then you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-a-vis photos.

But I seriously doubt such a sign existed at that tech conference.

That answers my question quite nicely, thanks. I phrased it badly, I don't think it was ever necessarily considered illegal to have your picture snapped by someone's phone without your consent, just that it was considered an inappropriate thing to do. But that's quite different from what's legal. I would agree with you that when sitting in a packed conference, there probably is no reasonable expectation of privacy based on the legal definition you posted.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

That answers my question quite nicely, thanks. I phrased it badly, I don't think it was ever necessarily considered illegal to have your picture snapped by someone's phone without your consent, just that it was considered an inappropriate thing to do. But that's quite different from what's legal. I would agree with you that when sitting in a packed conference, there probably is no reasonable expectation of privacy based on the legal definition you posted.

Oh! Sorry Parallax, I didn't mean to "single you out" on that. Your discussion point just triggered my thoughts and understanding about privacy.

Also, I just found this on the PyCon website regarding their "Code of Conduct" at the conference:

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

Taking a couple of photos of an individual or individuals sitting behind you or off to the side could never fall into the realm of "harassment." If she took a couple of photos and they asked her to stop and she didn't, then you could make a case.

Otherwise, it seems as though PyCon is fine with personal photography at their conferences as long as it doesn't cross the line into abusive behavior.

There are sexual jokes, and there are sexually offensive jokes. Did the jokes in any way make reference to rape, child abuse, or treating women as objects? I haven't read too much, but so far I haven't heard a definite yes. If I make a joke about my penis, while immature and annoying, does that make it offensive to women and make it hard for them to be in the industry or promote the ill-treatment of women? No. Should they be kicked out for being annoying while everyone else is trying to listen? Yes. Should it be treated like another rape case? No. She did nothing wrong, but all they did was something aggravating. The companies shouldn't be able to fire these people without them having a history of needing discipline, but unfortunately companies can do whatever the hell they want. Equality is important, but picking stupid fields of battle only hurt the cause.

Posting a picture to thousands of followers is kind of a dick move, but its not over the line since there was no intent of getting them fired. Saying that these men deserved a public shaming is even silly, because there is not even necessarily shame in having made some immature jokes. Immature jokes flood our television every day. And heck even "goin' commando" (as someone as under their name here) is a phrase that can be taken sexually and thereby be offensive.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

That answers my question quite nicely, thanks. I phrased it badly, I don't think it was ever necessarily considered illegal to have your picture snapped by someone's phone without your consent, just that it was considered an inappropriate thing to do. But that's quite different from what's legal. I would agree with you that when sitting in a packed conference, there probably is no reasonable expectation of privacy based on the legal definition you posted.

Wouldn't taking a photo of someone to post on twitter to talk smack about, especially when you have so many followers, count as harassment. Sounds like cyber bullying to me. And its not like she asked them to stop talking. Its kind of strange that no body did if they were making jokes for a long time. She couldn't have been the only one to get annoyed if it really was a long time.

agentwred wrote:

Wouldn't taking a photo of someone to post on twitter to talk smack about, especially when you have so many followers, count as harassment. Sounds like cyber bullying to me.

The size of an audience does not determine whether or not harassment has occurred. Harassment can occur if your audience is zero or 8 billion.

Also, posting a photo and "talking smack" is not harassment. There has to be repeated behavior. You can't say, "Someone posted a photo of me and said mean things about me" and have that quantified as harassment. If that were the case, the courts would be overflowing with litigants claiming harassment.

As an example of harassment laws, here is the State of Arizona statute on harassment:

A. A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass or with knowledge that the person is harassing another person, the person:

1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses.

2. Continues to follow another person in or about a public place for no legitimate purpose after being asked to desist.

3. Repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person.

4. Surveils or causes another person to surveil a person for no legitimate purpose.

5. On more than one occasion makes a false report to a law enforcement, credit or social service agency.

6. Interferes with the delivery of any public or regulated utility to a person.

B. A person commits harassment against a public officer or employee if the person, with intent to harass, files a nonconsensual lien against any public officer or employee that is not accompanied by an order or a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien or is not issued by a governmental entity or political subdivision or agency pursuant to its statutory authority, a validly licensed utility or water delivery company, a mechanics' lien claimant or an entity created under covenants, conditions, restrictions or declarations affecting real property.

C. Harassment under subsection A is a class 1 misdemeanor. Harassment under subsection B is a class 5 felony.

D. This section does not apply to an otherwise lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing.

E. For the purposes of this section, "harassment" means conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person.

Most other state laws are similar, and I am hard pressed to find what Richards did meeting any of the definitions in the statute.

Could fall under A1 or A4 depending on whether you count "being fired" as cause for serious alarm or annoyance.