notice the “and” between 2 and 3? There’s your clue.
We have no indication that this is the case. We have no indication anyone asked her to stop. You are trying to twist the narrative into something it’s not. But hey, no big deal. What is a big deal to me is that she did nothing wrong. Nothing.
Yes, that indicates that section 3 is concurrent with section 2. Which goes to further my point: if section 1 is intended to be read concurrently with 2 and 3, it would have an “and” at it’s end to indicate that. It doesn’t, ergo it’s independent from them.
We have no indication that they didn’t either, and it strains belief that you’re seriously contending that it’s probable that multiple people were so concerned by her behaviour that they went to the police without any of them asking her to leave them alone first. In fact, I’d argue that the fact that multiple people went to the police about her is actually an excellent indication that people tried asking her to stop and were not heeded.
Notice the semicolon? The law is written in a manner that all 3 conditions must be met before a violation has occurred. I’m not going to argue this point further as your position has no merit.
I’m guessing you don’t know much about the modern American millennial. That is in fact the most likely scenario. But it doesn’t matter. According to state law and the information provided, the woman did nothing wrong so unless you can cite some new evidence proving she was committing some crime, then you really have nothing to say that is not speculation with the intent to paint an innocent person and a problem. I’m not a fan of going after the innocent so if that’s your position, we are done here.
Even if you were correct, my point regarding the shoddiness of intent as a defense stands, with your only counterpoint being a lame-duck attempt to argue that she was never told to leave anyone alone because that’s how “the modern American millennial” is, according to… you. So yes, fine, if you were somehow also correct that not one of the people who went to the police about her tried asking her to leave them alone first, she’s innocent.
But that’s a real goddamn stretch, and if you’re reduced to basing your argument on a platform as weak as “I know those millennials” you’re fully aware of that. So yeah, we’re done.
If he doesn’t get a date, at least he has bragging rights.
It’s the gig economy!
You’re both not a lawyer, nor are you any sort of expert on free speech rights or what constitutes harassment.
You are right on all points. But I do have one thing going for me. I know how to read and understand the rules of punctuation. Unless you have a specific reason to doubt my view on this subject, your response is little more than a rhetorical attempt to discredit my position without evidence.
It’s worth noting that the police flatly stated that she is not under criminal investigation. Since the police have a duty to investigate criminal activity, we may safely assume that in their view, no criminal activity took place. Would you like to argue that the police are wrong on this one?
Actually, that’s not at all correct. The sequence, for her to be guilty of harassment would be for her to speak to someone, that person asks her to stop, and she refused to stop. I have seen no evidence that this was the case but if you have something showing that’s what she did, then I’ll concede.
Your attempts to paint this innocent person who acted within her rights as a criminal just because there were some people who didn’t like what she was doing is a fine example of how authoritarianism is destroying our society.
I said we’re done, but since you insist, I reiterate: the fact that multiple people went to the police about her actions is in and of itself pretty convincing evidence that at least one of them tried asking her to leave them alone and had no success. Your plaintive cry of “but ~millenials~!” in no way convinces me or anyone else that it’s plausible that multiple people jumped straight to “Gee whizz, I’d better call the cops!” before saying to her “Please leave me alone, I don’t want to date your son.”
I will further note that the argument “But what she did wasn’t illegal because you can’t prove anyone specifically asked her to stop!” sounds remarkably like “But what he did wasn’t rape because you can’t prove that she specifically asked him to stop!”
Finally, your attempts to defend the actions of someone who was clearly distressing other people by trying to weasel them within the letter of the law are a fine example of how authoritarianism uses slavish obedience to rules to justify harming members of the society you purport to esteem so highly. Even were her actions legal, the law is not the arbiter of morality, nor should it be.
Yeah, so did I but you still responded.
Your comparing a woman asking other women if they would like to date her son to rape is disgusting. It has no parallels. Just stop. It’s disgusting.
I’m not comparing her actions to rape, I’m comparing your defense of them to one consistently used by rapists. But reading comprehension is hard, I guess. 
There is legal harassment and the general term - which I am using correctly (see below). But if it bugs you so, you can mentally replace the word in your head to something you find more acceptable. The article said they weren’t looking to charge her with anything, so the argument it was “legal” is moot.
It is clear YOU don’t consider it harassment. But YOU weren’t there and YOU didn’t experience it. Obviously people who experienced it had enough alarm bells go off in their heads they felt the need to tell someone. Where do you get off telling others they don’t feel what they feel and their actions and reactions aren’t valid?
I’ve acknowledged these people MAY have overreacted, but it is impossible to determine that with the information given. It appears more than one person complained, which leads me to conclude more than one person found the experience uncomfortable and it wasn’t just the bad judgement of one person. Your outright dismissal of their feelings with no acknowledgement that they indeed could have felt harassed seems to show you would rather be “right” than consider what others feel is valid.
No one is asking for this lady to be jailed or crucified, just a request for her to change her behavior that makes others uncomfortable. If you can’t acknowledge that, then I can only imagine you were an absolute terror to your siblings with the whole “I’m not touching you.” game.
ha·rass | \ hə-ˈras ; ˈher-əs, ˈha-rəs \
harassed; harassing; harasses
1a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE
// I have been harassed with the toil of verse— William Wordsworth
b(1) : to annoy persistently
//was harassing his younger brother
(2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
//was being harassed by her classmates
//claims that the police were unfairly harassing him
2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids
//harassed the enemy
In my view the tyranny of the easily offended is insufficient cause to compel a person to change their legally protected behavior. I have no problem with people telling her to stop. I have no problem with a group of people telling her to stop. Further, I have no opinion as to whether she should stop. My position is simply that having the police intervene is over the top and should have never happened.
What people feel has no bearing on anything. No one has a right to decide that another must not be allowed speak because they don’t like what is being said or how it’s being said. Until an action reaches criminal levels, law enforcement has no reason to become involved.
I’m watching this whole argument and honestly it doesn’t even match with my experience of being on college campuses. The police get involved in everything. Campus police are who you end up talking to if you need to catch a feral cat so how the hell do you keep the police from getting involved on campus? Maybe that would have a good strategy though… run at this lady and explain “what are you doing!? Don’t you know the cops might show up!? Dear God don’t you have any idea what they’ll do to you?”
Adding this because the thought actually kind of disturbs me: I’m not sure if it’s actually good if we all accept that kind of thing and begin acting accordingly. Won’t that just… make it more true? Or at least increase tolerance/acceptance?
The doublethink you’re exhibiting here is staggering.
First, you declare that no-one has a right to decide that another “must not be allowed speak”, which means any laws that do so, such as those which prohibit members of the military from revealing operational information are impermissible.
Yet at the same time you acknowledge the possibility of speech being criminal, which is irreconcilable with your prior assertion that no-one has the right to curtail the speech of others.
your mental gymnastics would earn high marks for creativity. No, a person or group may not compel another to not speak. Yes, if the speech is criminal, law enforcement may compel a person to not speak. I don’t know if these ideas are new to you but it sure seems like it.
Is that clear enough for you?
Law enforcement are “a person or group”. Moreover laws are made by groups of people, and used by those people to silence speech. Your bizarre insistence on setting them on some kind of morally exempt ivory pedestal as if they spring fully formed from a vacuum is precisely a characteristic of the authoritarianism you decry.
Did you even go to college? Or, like, step out doors? It appears you are completely unaware of social norms.
Because take this behavior into the classroom or the office and you will be asked to stop. Not even this behavior - just unwelcome speech of any kind. Not even controversial speech, but speaking while the teacher is speaking, or talking out of turn in a meeting, or talking too loud around other cubicles.
All of that behavior will result in being asked to stop it, and if it continues, there will be reprimands up to and including expulsion or being fired. Someone defending their actions as “freedom of speech” will still get them fired/expelled for being disruptive to the learning/working environment.
So none of this is curbing free speech. It is curbing inappropriate behavior. The agreed upon social norms and decorum.
Wow… the first amendment only says that the government cant penalize anyone for what they say. It doesn’t guarantee “a right” to be a nuisance to other people, and restraint orders are a thing, because unwanted harassment is a thing.
That said, I agree that calling the cops shouldn’t be anything but a very last resort.
I’m saying this isn’t a free speech issue, and your not a person who should be telling everyone what the law means - because you are not. You are now claiming interpretation of the law is the correct one and therefore 100% of what you are saying is correct, which is also not something that passes muster.
Your point of don’t call the cops unless you absolutely have to is fine, but in defending something really basic you have steered the boat into choppy water and demanding a full understanding of the law from everyone while professing a position of expertise you don’t have.
@anotherone, for what it’s worth, I believe:
