3 ms·
I don't see anything in the description of that call that qualifies as either slander (which requires a false statement of fact) or harassment (which requires a
by teraflop 11y ago
I don't see anything in the description of that call that qualifies as either slander (which requires a false statement of fact) or harassment (which requires a pattern of repeated contact intended to cause emotional distress).
- guard-of-terra 11y agoIf bringing unrelated parties to dialogue in the background is not harrasment, then what is? Imagine I will contact your significant other over your comment on HN. Would not you be deeply disturbed even if I do it just once? Bonus points for frivolous legal threats on my side.
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago"If bringing unrelated parties to dialogue in the background is not harrasment (sic), then what is?" Exactly what parent said, " . . . a pattern of repeated contact intended to cause emotional distress". Yes, doing as you said would be deeply disturbing, but it wouldn't be harassment.
- tptacek 11y agoNobody is arguing that this person shouldn't be disturbed. But that doesn't make it "criminal harassment". Unfortunately --- and this is not a normative argument, so please don't wig out --- the criminal action here is the researcher's. Nobody's been prosecuted, but could they have been? YES.