Trick or treat?

[Kramodlog]

Sexual seduction

I said nothing of her "needing" to be harassed, nor that harassment is civil or polite. I don't know where youre getting that.

With the type of comment demonstrated below a few times already, the condemning of the woman's behavior and the defense/rationalizing of frivolous lawsuits as opposed to defending her rights to actually do what she did. Althought, I admit, "need" might be exagerated. Condone would be more accurate.

However, her harassment is as foreseeable as that of a child being told by an adult stranger that they are too fat to have candy like all he other kids.

If you put the same energy you did to condemn that harassment as you put to condemn that woman, you would be credible. You talk a lot about cilivity and politeness, yet only one sides seems to get your disapproval.

 

[Deset Gled]

condemning of the woman's behavior ... her rights to actually do what she did.

Just to reiterate a point that I posted earlier, but seems to have been overlooked: there was no woman actually handing out the letter. It was reported before Halloween that the call was a hoax from a woman who has previously called in fake controversies to a morning comedy show. And despite the press that the story got, there have been no reports of anyone actually receiving the letter.

You are defending actions that did not happen, and were never intended to happen. You are defending a joke that was made up for the sole purpose of sounding ridiculous. In the internet vernacular: you got trolled.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Just to reiterate a point that I posted earlier, but seems to have been overlooked: there was no woman actually handing out the letter. It was reported before Halloween that the call was a hoax from a woman who has previously called in fake controversies to a morning comedy show. And despite the press that the story got, there have been no reports of anyone actually receiving the letter.

You are defending actions that did not happen, and were never intended to happen. You are defending a joke that was made up for the sole purpose of sounding ridiculous. In the internet vernacular: you got trolled.

Isn't it more like the people who got upset over this and are condemning her actions are the ones that got trolled?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

With the type of comment demonstrated below a few times already, the condemning of the woman's behavior and the defense/rationalizing of frivolous lawsuits as opposed to defending her rights to actually do what she did. Althought, I admit, "need" might be exagerated. Condone would be more accurate.

Deset Gled's twice-posted, onced missed correction- sorry DG- notwithstanding, such actions are potentially within the person's right to free speech (actual or symbolic)- with the possible exception of the tort mentioned above- but in no jurisdiction does the right to free speech equal a right to speak without consequence.

Her actions couldn't be stopped by, say...a policeman or other agent of the government. But it is entirely predictable and possibly legal that hurtful acts as described in the hoax could be answered by similarly hurtful acts- social ostracism, ugly language directed at her, a refusal of service in businesses who sided with the kids, etc.- or even a lawsuit. (See below.)

If you put the same energy you did to condemn that harassment as you put to condemn that woman, you would be credible. You talk a lot about cilivity and politeness, yet only one sides seems to get your disapproval.

I condoned neither the harassment of the children nor he harassment of the fictional curmudgeon, merely pointed out that:

1) the consequences in both cases were forseeable, and

2) the former, at the very least, could be actionable under a known and established tort.

Whether harassing a woman for acting in the way proposed in the hoax was actionable- and the threat or filing of a lawsuit is not inherently harassment*- would depend on the nature of the reaction. And, up until now, the threat of a lawsuit was the only reaction specifically enumerated.











* there would have to be an utter lack of merit in the filing and/or a pattern of threats of litigation or other acts for the threat of a lawsuit to rise to the level of harassment in any legal sense.

 

[Kramodlog]

but in no jurisdiction does the right to free speech equal a right to speak without consequence.

Strawman/yawn

I never said it was the case. You do like fallacus.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
but in no jurisdiction does the right to free speech equal a right to speak without consequence.

Strawman/yawn

I never said it was the case. You do like fallacus.

Exhibit 1: Your own words.

If you put the same energy you did to condemn that harassment as you put to condemn that woman, you would be credible. You talk a lot about cilivity and politeness, yet only one sides seems to get your disapproval.

There was no discussion of harassment of the woman, just one of the probability of her getting sued in civil court for distribution of the letters to fat kids.

Since a lawsuit in and of itself is not harassment, there was no need for me to defend or decry it, nor address the civility thereof.

 

[Kramodlog]

Since a lawsuit in and of itself is not harassment, there was no need for me to defend or decry it, nor address the civility thereof.

Of course it can be be harassment.This is why we have laws against this. Of course, I am a very bad person and consider intimidation and such to be harassment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course it can be be harassment.This is why we have laws against this. Of course, I am a very bad person and consider intimidation and such to be harassment.

I pointed out in post #134 the limited conditions under which a lawsuit can be considered harassment. A tort lawsuit in response to an adults' actions that caused another person's child distress would not be a SLAPP.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

If so, that should be undertaken by someone who knows the child (or person) in question, and knows the actual problem.

My point was that those people may have failed to do so.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Just to reiterate a point that I posted earlier, but seems to have been overlooked: there was no woman actually handing out the letter. It was reported before Halloween that the call was a hoax from a woman who has previously called in fake controversies to a morning comedy show. And despite the press that the story got, there have been no reports of anyone actually receiving the letter.

You are defending actions that did not happen, and were never intended to happen. You are defending a joke that was made up for the sole purpose of sounding ridiculous. In the internet vernacular: you got trolled.

Umm ... no. Discussing a hypothetical situation is not the same as being trolled.