Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (47173)	5/13/2002 8:01:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Too late to edit. My post should, of course, have said "but if I'm wrong." Sorry for the omission.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (47173)	5/13/2002 9:41:14 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"It's not my understanding of the law..." It is silly for me to compare my understanding of the law with a pro like you. Yet when I was young, a law professor told me everything is based on one law, an unwritten law that he called the "reasonable man law." He said that if something would seem wrong to a reasonable man, then it is likely that you could find support for it in the extensive legal documents of our society. I consider myself reasonable and it seems reasonable to me that if someone makes strong and repeated statements that they want someone to leave them alone, that it would be wrong not to respect their wishes. It seems reasonable to think that there would be a line at which refusing to respect that wish would provoke a level of negative feelings in the requestee that would qualify as emotional distress. From there, continued refusals or increases in severity would make the victim hood a more serious situation. What constitutes harassment? There is a specific law here in Colorado that seems to general to me but it basically says that anything you do that could provoke another person to escalate to violence is criminal harrassment. The following is probably more pertinent to your question. The legal definition of harassment is "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person." [Black's] This seemingly vague definition provides little guidance in establishing what behavior might subjectively be construed by another as harassment. Federal and State Statutory Definitions Harassment, when it takes on a threatening tenor and the subject of the harassment is placed in fear, may become actionable not only in civil courts, but criminal courts as well. Various state and federal statutes regarding harassment and "stalking" have been enacted to attempt to deal with such unwelcome attention, and its harmful effects. As technology progresses, so have legal regulations and remedies. ++++++++++++++++++++++ The Model Code recommends that punishment for stalking crimes be set at the felony level. Other recommendations include: --Expansion of the fear element to include fear of sexual assault; and --Enactment of harassment/misdemeanor stalking or intimidation laws to deal with annoying behavior, including aggravated harassment for persistent behavior that does not rise to felony-level fear. ++++++++++++++++++ Of course, the most specific and pertinent seems to be the recently enacted Washington State law (where you reside, right?); and this specific section which Laz emphasized a week or two ago: (ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person. (4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. {+ "Contact" includes, in addition to any other form of contact or communication, the sending of an electronic communication to the person. +} In conclusion: The laws appear to be getting more and more definition and their application seems to be holding up to challenges in the process. Everyone here has expressed their recognition of the position held by Poet. Some of these persons you have recognized as reasonable. Based on the information contained in this thread, which seems to be qualified and supported, we can reasonably conclude that Poet considers your attention to be an annoyance at the least and fear causing at the most. We can determine this by her statements, acknowledgements from people serving as her spokes person(s), and by her actions. From this it is reasonable to say that you "should know" her position; whether or not you believe there is a basis for her to feel the way she does, and whether or not you believe that could change in the future. It is quite apparent that you have made attempts to contact Poet after being given "actual notice" that she does not want to be contacted. This behavior seems to be in line with the legal position as stated above. I see no provision to make an exception for the electronic nature of these relationships. In fact, the courts are beginning to see that as a contributing factor. Silly old me, I had to try.