What is the distinction between saying something that can offend someone and having it be defined as "free speech", and having it be defined as "harassment"? You can get in serious trouble for calling someone on their phone and saying bothersome things to them. That's no different than saying the same things to someone's face, yet the former can get someone in trouble and the latter is usually recognized as "free speech". That's simply an instance of contradiction in our current law, but many people agree with it. Would you consider it "free speech" for a guy to break up with his girlfriend and then taunt her for being fat ugly and nasty with everyone, or would that be "harassment"?
Harassment involves deliberate intimidation of some kind. And not necessarily just physical. Free speech is simply expressing ideas. Even offensive ideas.
Then where would a guy who dumped his girlfriend saying "she's a fat ugly stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)" in front of large groups of people and humiliating her, fit in?
If it was systematic (a pattern of behavior that appears to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate) that would be harassment. If it is random, then thats not harassment. He's allowed an opinion just like everyone else. If I saw her walking down the street I would be allowed to yell out "look at that fat stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)"...that would not be harassment.
I don't know about that. It should sorta be mandatory to be respectful of others to some extent unless they were disrespectful first. But that's my personal ideology.
I think it should be normal to show that kind of restraint, but not mandatory. Keep in mind that a person who is so rude faces some consequences. What would you think, seeing such an episode on the street? That guy would seem like a jerk. You'd feel sorry for the girl. Perhaps no one knows either of them... that means no lasting consequences (beyond embarrassment) for either. Keep in mind that a person must behave some way once before someone can tell him/her that it is offensive or threatening. Repeated behavior after that is beyond excuse. BUT you can always walk away. Or can you? The other problem is inescapability. Harassment means the person is following you, waiting outside your home, corners you at some place you can't avoid (work) and continues to attack you after you've made it known you find it offensive or threatening. Also harassment is personal. It's not a guy barking out a slogan at everyone he sees. It's a targetted behavior toward a person or a group. It can be likened to the difference between domestic assault and domestic abuse. Anything from a slap to a near-deadly beating is assault. Abuse can be an even wider range, including nonviolent behavior such as insults. What makes it abuse and makes its effects powerful is that it is planned, repeated, and that the victim, for whatever reason, cannot easily escape (sometimes for psychological reasons).
Yes exactly and I think that a lot of this goes on behind everyones' backs, especially in places where less mature people are likely to be found (such as schools). But, that's not even remotely the point of this thread. The point is this: you have to draw a fine line somewhere. How exactly many times would someone have to say something? To who, exactly? Exactly how vicious would their comments have to be? Etc.
You are getting into the area of slander. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. The defense for slander is truth.
Abuse/harassment isn't limited to slander. But again, that's not the main point. The main point is that the exact details of what divides harassment and free speech..depends on who you ask. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in harassment. The line between the two, however, seems subjective. Ultimately, this is another huge problem with moral absolutism.
No, it doesn't. Repeated contact with absolutely no intention to intimidate anyone can result in an arrest for harrassment. Asking someone to go to dinner can be harrassment. No intention to intimidate at all. There is virtually nothing you could do or say to another person that could not be taken as offensive and disrepectful. Some people get up every day to be insulted. "I saw that look and I know what he was thinking." I actually had that complaint lodge by an employee when I was working. Our President said, "We reward our friends and punish our enemies." Is that intimidating? He encouraged his followers to seek out those who didn't want to vote for him and "get in their face". Is that ordering harrassment? How about Rahm Emmaual going down a list of names and after saying each name shouts, "Dead." Is that harrassment, intimidating, or disrepectful. Free speech is simply a prohibition on the government on writing laws restricting your freedom of speech. As we all no, we have a plethora of laws restricting free speech. Harrassment, on the other hand, has less to do with "what" you say as it does with "how" you say it, "how often you say it", "where" you say it, "when" you say it. If you call someone repeatedly after 2 a.m. and simply say, "You're wonderful," that's harrassment. My personal opinion is that if someone says you are bothering them, quit. If that means you don't speak to them again, fine. On the other hand, I don't think people should be charge with an offense when their is no reasonable way for them to know they were committing a crime.
I will, for the sake of this conversation, define harassing someone is legal but not nice. Here, harassment is any unwanted verbal or physical attention that is directed towards someone else. The legality of harassment depends on the context in which it occurs. If it is in public (i.e. on the pavement of a busy road) then it is legal but reveals the lack of character of the harasser. In a workplace, it is illegal because part of an employer's responsibility is to provide an environment that is safe including safe from hostile interactions. As such, harassment at work is not legal because it creates a hostile work environment.
If you are being arrested, it means that the law determined you did have intent. Even if you yourself dont think you did. No, you cannot be arrested for harassment if the law (police officer, court, whatever) doesnt think you are intending to harass. LOL Otherwise the police could arrest anyone they felt like all the time without repercussions. All they'd have to do is make up a harassment charge at random. If the person you are asking considers it harassment, then that is intimidation. She's made it clear she's not interested and you are still asking her. No we dont. We only have restrictions on WHERE or HOW you can express it. There is no idea or opinion that is against the law in the US. If you have a single example to the contrary, feel free to post it.
"If the person you are asking considers it harassment, then that is intimidation. She's made it clear she's not interested and you are still asking her." I'm just curious as to how you jumped to "She's made it clear she's not interested...." "If you have a single example to the contrary, feel free to post it." You are harrassing and intimidating me by implying, quite directly, that I have to have your permission to post something. And, if I consider it harrassment, it is. That's it. Nothing you say makes any difference. I should report you to the police--moderaters--for harrassing and intimidating me. Of course, I won't. I'm not a nitwit. But, your position that if I feel harrassed and intimidated then it was your intention to harrass and intimidate me is obviously untenable. "If you are being arrested, it means that the law determined you did have intent. Even if you yourself dont think you did. No, you cannot be arrested for harassment if the law (police officer, court, whatever) doesnt think you are intending to harass. LOL" Wrong. Some laws are specific intent laws where the police must prove that you intended to commit the crime. An example is murder. Other laws, such as reckless endangerment, do not require specific intent to commit a crime. Stalkers sometimes have no intention to harrass or intimidate. On the contrary, they're in love. In such cases, the police have to prove the acts but not the intent. Here's an example. One night I got a phone call every fifteen minutes all night long with someone telling me to quit seeing his girlfriend. I had no idea what he was talking about. I found out who it was and learned that he meant to call someone else with my name. Ho, ho, it was all a mistake. He had no intent to harrass me. It was, actually, an accident. Didn't help. He was convicted of telephone harrassment of me, the mistake.
That is incorrect. It is only harassment if the LAW considers it harassment. The definition is subjective, but the law gets the final say. Sources? Examples? According to who? Who exactly determines that if not the law?
I think each person deep down in his/her heart knows what harassment is. People should refrain from using nasty words because nasty words can really hurt someone.
