I think the article makes the difference clearer than I have been able to, and answers the “zero tolerance” argument. What do you think?
Well, you didn’t ask me, but my question is “which zero tolerance argument?”
There is a very big difference in scope between a rapist and the puerile behavior of Franken towards Tweeden. Legally. That’s one zero tolerance question, when it’s a matter of LAW.
Another is the matter of MORALS. Nothing Franken did towards Tweeden is illegal……..but if Tweeden was not a willing participant……there is another area of “zero tolerance” — — that of morality. (The Classic dilemma here is usually posed as “it’s legal for a person to screw the spouse of another person, but it’s certainly not moral.”)
Third area: The Court of Public Opinion as it relates to politicians running for elective office. It’s my hope that the voters, in the future, will have zero tolerance for any of these shenanigans when it comes to what they do in the voting booth.
Zero tolerance in the other two areas? Hard to hope for, I’d say.