He was in the hot seat now, wondering how a simple matter of affection and desire for the plaintiff had morphed into a dramatic and potentially life changing trial by jury and public opinion. The media attention to the proceedings had been absurd- he’d thought they had better things to do than to sensationalize people’s private affairs- but then again history illuminated very well the squishy concerns of most folks.
“Can you cast light on what was going through your mind when you sent the offensive texts?” the prosecutor asked him.
“My affection for and desire to be closer to the plaintiff,” he responded. “When I realized the nature of my growing feelings for her, I felt compelled to let her know of those feelings, but realized that because of my shyness I lacked the ability to articulate what I wanted. In olden times a man would simply suddenly kiss a woman he desired, and let the cards fall where they would. But in these modern times such behavior is frowned upon, and a man runs the risk of being sued for sexual assault and ostracised by his peers. I never once imagined that simple words could also lead to a lawsuit and sham trial!”
“The plaintiff’s feelings matter sir!” the prosecutor declared. “It’s become common knowledge that words can be violence. The plaintiff’s discomfort matters.”
“The texts I sent her were A.I. generated,” the defendant responded. “I prompted the latest A.I. program my company markets with the question: ‘What shall a shy man say to a woman he has romantic interest in, to encourage her to give thought to the idea of closeness and romantic adventure?’ So on some level it wasn’t me who used those words.”
The defendant stood, in his capacity as defense council, and held in his hands transcripts. “I’d like to enter as evidence the printed texts in question, which contain the watermark and timestamp of the A.I. program my company sells. This is proof of the fact that the words in question were computer-generated, and not my words, though I will admit that they do reflect what I would have liked to have said to the plaintiff, if I’d had the courage.”
The plaintiff was glaring at the defendant, the predatory glint in her eyes obvious to the jury members and judge, who appeared to be subtly cheering on the plaintiff.
“So what did you hope would happen between you and the plaintiff,” the prosecutor asked, “Upon her receiving and reading the texts?”
He responded, “I had suspected, from the beginning of our work relationship, that she had feelings for me also, but hid them from me because I was the boss, and older than her. In fact, I suspected that she had marriage in mind. Given my success in the A.I. field, and my wealth and standard of living, as well as her knowledge that I was single and unmarried, it seemed clear that she was implementing a subtle seduction of me towards marriage. This theory was affirmed when I checked her workstation and discovered google searches such as, ‘How to seduce your boss, with an eye to marriage, without him suspecting a thing.’ Along with, ‘How to trick a man into matrimony.’ I believe this lawsuit was filed because I didn’t respond quickly enough to her own desires, so she got greedy for notoriety, as well as worried that I was toying with her and perceived her as merely a hired hand and eye candy. I really am shy around women, I suppose because I’ve spent most of my life staring into computer screens.
“Objection!” the prosecutor shouted. “Pure speculation as to the most private thoughts of a vulnerable employee confronted with the power differential inherent in the relationship!”
“Objection sustained,” the judge replied. “Stick to the facts sir, and don’t project your fantasies in this proceeding!” The judge was seen to smile somewhat as she said this, a smile directed in the direction of the plaintiff.
“Given what we’ve heard from you, can we safely assume that you would be amenable to matrimony with the plaintiff?” the prosecutor asked.
The defendant locked eyes with the plaintiff, and said, “She has stated that she wants my home, my money, my business, and my freedom. Isn’t that what marriage is?” he said with a wry smile. “Were she to withdraw the lawsuit and agree to marriage, the judge could preside at once, here and now, to hear our vows.
The plaintiff erupted in tears, stood, and rushed into the defendants arms. The judge was giddy as she united the two in matrimony. Court costs were forgiven, and the happy couple embarked on a new chapter in their lives.
CP Butchvarov 2024