http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ I'm going to be completely up front with you and say your original comment seems to me like you are coming from a place where you don't understand how verbal harassment can affect someone. That you've never been a 15 year old girl walking alone, being yelled at and fearing for her safety because you don't know what will happen next but you do know that you are small and weak. Verbal harassment doesn't bother me when I'm in a position of power or somewhere I know I am safe. That could be completely wrong, but that was my gut reaction. I think laying that out to be either confirmed or denied is better than it simply colouring my responses in the background.
None of these definitions appear to criminalize shouting something awful at someone from a car window. While abhorrent, it doesn't appear to fit these definitions of harassment. Do you agree?
This one is pretty broad. I mean Christ read this one, And this, All of those things are considered harrassment and all are pretty "meh" things that people generally handle on their own. That doesn't mean they just aren't harrassment anymore, I've dealt with some things on my own before that definitely still counted as crimes. I'm going to be honest with you though, my appetite for this conversation has pretty much died, so even though I may actually enjoy talking to you about it I'm going to spend my time out in the world today. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm
Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication
In almost all cases harassment law deals with either conduct in the schools and workplaces or behavior that you'd consider stalking. Harsh or threatening language without physical contact or property damage is almost never a criminal offense, and if it is it's going to misdemeanor. Go look at the SPLC and the incidents they have been tracking. In Louisiana, a woman was harassed by white men in a passing car which was a frequently reported "venue" of harassment since election day: I was standing at a red light waiting to cross the street. A black truck with three white men pulled up to the red light. One of them yelled, "Fuck your black life!" The other two began to laugh. One began to chant "Trump!" as they drove away. White males in black Ford truck were calling a black family in vehicle next to them N*ers, and yelling that it was Trump's country now. Truck sped off before I could get license info. None of these are crimes. All of them are contemptible but none of it is criminal. USA today is getting their information from SPLC and CAIR, both of whom have an agenda to push, neither of which is going to be especially careful in the use of the term "Hate Crime," probably because they would be more than happy to see certain types of protected speech become crimes. A few of the incidents listed could be considered criminal, mostly misdemeanor. Many of the incidents occur in schools. There is a good chance that some of this activity could turn into some kind of civil claim, either schools being sued because they didn't protect children from harassment or getting sued because they punished students for federally protected speech. Still not criminal. It's an piece conflating an increase in reports of racism from groups that fight racism with an increase in racist crime with no facts or figures that aren't mingled up with protected speech and real crime and has no methodology beyond "these are some reports that we've collected". I'm sure it's good for page views.The day after the presidential election, my friend, a black female freshman in a [Boston area college], heard a white female student say: "this is their punishment for 8 years of black people." When she turned around to see who said it, the white student laughed at her.
A misdemeanor is a crime. Had you read the link I provided you would know it discussed harassment as a misdemeanor and you would also know it did not just talk about stalking. What myself and many others experience are not just instances of " unpleasant expression", they are times when we fear for our safety. Be thankful you don't understand that.
Harassment has to be "Clear and Pervasive" to meet the legal definition and even then its mostly a civil matter. For everything else there is the Hurt feelings report. http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/news/a36948/lombardy-elementary-school-hurt-feelings-report/
I think the idea that I live in some kind of bubble in which I have no idea what fear of or the experience of violence has no effect on me in antagonistic. Ok, here's my butchers bill, only posted because it seems to be the crux of some kind of point you are trying to make (is the point that there should be a law against fifteen year olds being frightened?) I've been armed robbed at gun point, on the job. I've been assaulted twice on the job. I've been assaulted once not at work. I've had a knife pulled on me while on the job. I've had guns flashed at me a few times, both in a threatening way and in a random way. I've been verbally threatened an innumerable number of times. Maybe we drastically different privileges in terms of our consumption of justice as a social good or you have an unrealistic view on what justice in America delivers. I don't know who you are, what you look like, where you live or what you've been through. I had a crazy homeless guy who lived in a patch of woods on DOT land who stood in front of my house, smashed an old TV and screamed that he was going to burn down my house and kill my family. I called the cops and they gave me a lecture on tolerance and told me they weren't doing anything about it. I had two guys smash up the bar I worked at, throwing bottles, glasses and chairs at me while I dodged like a carnival duck behind the bar. The cops came, my boss said he just wanted an insurance report and didn't want to pursue it because charges would only attract unwanted attention from a certain segment of the African American community. The cops said "good enough" handed me the paperwork and I swept up 50 something busted glasses. I watched a guy walking down my street testing the door handle on each car as he walked by. I called the cops and watched as they gave him a stern lecture and let him leave. Riding my bike home at three in the morning I came upon a street where many of the cars doors and trunks were popped open with dome lights on. Someone had obviously just jimmied and tossed every car on the street that they could get into. I called the cops and they told me that the owners could just file reports in the morning and that no units would come out to look around. Two gentlemen were sitting in my neighbors front retaining wall opening amazon packages, both were young ragged white guys, my neighbor is an older black gentlemen. They both got on bikes and rode away when they saw me. I called the cops with the best description I could get in the dark, the dispatcher said to call back if I got a better description. I pointed out that I had the invoices from the packages and that it'd be an easy collar. "Sir, call back if you get a better description." Can't even bother to call it out in case an officer sees them around later on... The one type of harassment that will get you in trouble is violating a restraining or no contact order. That is because to do so is to cross a judge who doesn't have any of the problems of a police officer or a prosecutor when balancing the scales of justice. Maybe you live in a place where the police will arrest a person for harsh language but that isn't a reality that I can relate to. I don't know if this is because you have the benefit of privilege, or significantly better justice system than I do or perhaps you are just relying on this as a rhetorical device and don't give a wit about the reality. I know a few officers from the shop. They are stretched thin and making an arrest on a bullshit call means that you can't be there if a serious call comes in. I've heard them worry about the night they don't have backup when they need it. Now back to the matter at hand. Some of this stuff happening is criminal and it should be prosecuted. Some of the stuff happening is federally protected speech and while there should be consequences for being a vicious bigoted bastard, we'd all be better off realizing the difference between crime and socially unacceptable but legal behavior. The "experts" in the piece are groups that conflate "hate speech" with "hate crimes." There no such thing as "hate speech" in a legal context and The media has a bad habit of trying to cast first amendment protected speech as criminal. The first amendment is the foundation to every other right we have. Without it every other right is in jeopardy. I believe that as a society we need to be extremely careful about creating new exceptions to it. I also think that mingling hate speech and hate crime in a reckless way to inflate the scope and severity of the real and troubling problems in our society doesn't help us deal with the problems or consequences of bigotry in a more productive way. If anything it smacks of the exact type of media and dialog manipulation that has gotten us to this point. Police have recently become a protected class that is protected by hate crimes legislation in some states. is just one aspect of the troubling consequences of a casual and eager acceptance of the criminalization of hate speech. Besides the "experts" inability to discriminate between criminal conduct and protected speech I have a few other reservations about the claim that we are experiencing a wave of hate crime greater than that which happened during 911. The claim might be true but it's not well supported by this expert analysis. SPLA and CAIR are soliciting information from social media and other sources. Compare social media in 2001 and today and I think that there is a pretty obvious gap in survey methods. Are reports up? You bet your ass they're up. I don't hate on SPLA or CAIR. They both do important work, work that needs to be done. They have a view point and a bias in which regarding certain types of speech is a crime serves their mission. I do question the quality of USA Today's "journalism" but what else is new. Page views = car and tooth paste sales = more shitty journalism = a less informed and less nuanced public discourse.
My second comment I laid out exactly how your comment read and gave you every opportunity to correct how I read it. You didn't take the opportunity that was handed to you, I'm not interested in it now. You didn't take the opportunity because you didn't want anything more than an argument. People don't get arrested for "harsh language" where I live, that doesn't make it less of a crime to harass people. My friend was in the hospital longer than her ex was held after he shoved her down the stairs. Does that stop being assault because the cops didn't care ? As a little bonus I think it would be a blessing to Americans if the first and second amendment where taken away. At this point they are just pointless distractions keeping everybody busy and convincing the majority of people they have this special American brand "freedom" while the government takes away everything else. We have hate speech laws in plenty of countries and aren't afraid of loosing our freedoms on account of actually having quite a few.
So what did this comment add to the conversation ? If it's not about just being pissy pants and getting into internet argument explain what it adds. Edit: Actually from yesterday, What did this add to the conversation as well ? You're right I don't understand you as well as you understand yourself so help me understand. How did these two comments do anything for this conversation beyond antagonise. If you mean almost never than you really know your stuff.