For well-intentioned managers, the twentieth anniversary of the case of Jean Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council may not be an especially happy one. This landmark case was the first in which an employer was held accountable for sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination. Since then, technology has transformed the world of work and human interaction to the point where a surgeon in London can mend a ruptured spleen in Dili — and a lewd e-mail can constitute sexual harassment.

Employment law has yet to catch up. In the meantime, enlightened employers have spent much of the past 20 years adapting to, and sometimes leading, the evolution of acceptable workplace mores. It has been a largely thankless task. In updated guidelines from the Equal Opportunities Commission, employers are reminded that they are always liable for employees’ harassment unless they have provably taken every “reasonable” step to prevent it; and that, in the “vast majority” of cases, a complainant’s view of what constitutes harassment should be accepted. Employers, in other words, are guilty until proven innocent of a wrong that comes in myriad, complex and necessarily personal guises.

This is not an argument for sudden relaxation of efforts to protect the dignity of employees and curb sexual harassment. On the contrary, it is entirely natural to expect employers to do their utmost to foster a civilised working environment. Keeping one’s costliest investment happy is, not least, good business. Sophisticated safeguards against harassment of all kinds are the norm in the US, and should be here. It is also natural to expect management to lead by example, and to be held accountable when it fails to uphold the standards that it expects of employees.

But it would be regrettable if an instinct to blame employers first and ask questions later unleashed a new wave of speculative allegations at a time of such rapid technological — and social — change. If two employees exchange mocking e-mails about a third, and one of those two forwards them to a friend who then distributes them more broadly, does this constitute harassment? If so, who, precisely, is the harasser? And does it affect the employer’s liability if the accused were using personal e-mail accounts? Ethically, the answers will always be unclear except on a case-by-case basis. Legally, those cases are only now establishing reliable precedents. In this state of flux, employers’ responsibilities are important, but those common to all individuals also matter.

The ether is not just a new arena for harassers. It is also a place where millions joke, provoke and — yes — flirt, and should not be prevented by any law or system of oversight from doing so. Managers should not have to abandon informality for fear of being misconstrued, just as e-mailers in general should not have to be reso-lutely dull. But all must accept that this new medium requires a new self-awareness; and that, technology aside, ignorance remains no excuse.