4 ms·

> This would be analogous to what people do in public spaces. How do I "revoke consent" to one-way communication in public spaces? All I can do is avoid known

> This would be analogous to what people do in public spaces. How do I "revoke consent" to one-way communication in public spaces? All I can do is avoid known people (if possible) or ignore them.

stcredzero 10y ago
How do I "revoke consent" to one-way communication in public spaces? "Okay, I'm done with this, and with you. I no longer consent to this interaction. If you continue, it's harassment." Then you walk away. In a virtual space, like Twitter, you block them. Then it's incumbent on them to not create a throwaway and continue the behavior. (And in the case of most middle schoolers and other internet willful idiots and trollers, they're probably not competent enough to hide their identity from a knowledgeable enemy.)
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > "Okay, I'm done with this, and with you. I no longer consent to this interaction. If you continue, it's harassment." Then you walk away. One-way communications are not an interaction. You cannot silence someone just by saying "shut up or it's harassment". Harassment, from a legal perspective, rightfully has a high bar that your example does not meet.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but: >> Then you walk away. If the person continues the interaction, they have to follow you to do it. Is that (legally) harassment? If not, isn't it something? Or can I just legally follow you down the street, loudly verbally abusing you, and you have no legal recourse?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > If the person continues the interaction, they have to follow you to do it. Is that (legally) harassment? Without violence or threats of violence, or stalking (which requires more than just following), not in California, AFAICT. Other jurisdictions may differ. > If not, isn't it something? Like, some crime? Not for just continuing an unwanted verbal interaction generally. Legally, that's generally called, "Exercising one's First Amendment rights." > Or can I just legally follow you down the street, loudly verbally abusing you, and you have no legal recourse? If it is loud and unreasonable noise, it might be actionable as disturbing the peace.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        So in the case of the infamous video about being a single female in New York, from the POV of California law, all of the male "transgressors" in that video were simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. (Had the events happened in downtown San Francisco.)
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So in the case of the infamous video about being a single female in New York, from the POV of California law, all of the male "transgressors" in that video were simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. IIRC, the video doesn't actually follow the fact pattern of the hypothetical upthread (its not limited to examples of a conversation being initiated, declined, and pursued), and does include things which might reasonably be included within some aspects of California's laws on criminal threats and/or disturbing the peace. But, generally, yes, lots of rude and offensive behavior is neither criminal nor even civilly actionable, just rude.
        stcredzero 10y ago
        IIRC, the video doesn't actually follow the fact pattern of the hypothetical upthread (its not limited to examples of a conversation being initiated, declined, and pursued), and does include things which might reasonably be included within some aspects of California's laws on criminal threats and/or disturbing the peace. IIRC, "examples of a conversation being initiated, declined, and pursued" were the worst examples shown. Everything else could possibly be argued as "disturbing the peace" but could also have been seen as one person saying something to a passer-by.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      It's one thing to be expressing yourself. It's another thing to be told that it's coming across as a transgression, then go out of your way to continue.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        You don't get to decide, unilaterally, that someone else's speech constitutes "transgression". Transgression of what? I'm curious what you think the state or society should do to someone who isn't breaking any laws. Do you really think the state should get involved if someone ignores your demand to stop talking to you?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

> This would be analogous to what people do in public spaces. How do I "revoke consent" to one-way communication in public spaces? All I can do is avoid known people (if possible) or ignore them.

stcredzero 10y ago

How do I "revoke consent" to one-way communication in public spaces? "Okay, I'm done with this, and with you. I no longer consent to this interaction. If you continue, it's harassment." Then you walk away. In a virtual space, like Twitter, you block them. Then it's incumbent on them to not create a throwaway and continue the behavior. (And in the case of most middle schoolers and other internet willful idiots and trollers, they're probably not competent enough to hide their identity from a knowledgeable enemy.)

vonmoltke 10y ago
> "Okay, I'm done with this, and with you. I no longer consent to this interaction. If you continue, it's harassment." Then you walk away. One-way communications are not an interaction. You cannot silence someone just by saying "shut up or it's harassment". Harassment, from a legal perspective, rightfully has a high bar that your example does not meet.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but: >> Then you walk away. If the person continues the interaction, they have to follow you to do it. Is that (legally) harassment? If not, isn't it something? Or can I just legally follow you down the street, loudly verbally abusing you, and you have no legal recourse?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If the person continues the interaction, they have to follow you to do it. Is that (legally) harassment? Without violence or threats of violence, or stalking (which requires more than just following), not in California, AFAICT. Other jurisdictions may differ. > If not, isn't it something? Like, some crime? Not for just continuing an unwanted verbal interaction generally. Legally, that's generally called, "Exercising one's First Amendment rights." > Or can I just legally follow you down the street, loudly verbally abusing you, and you have no legal recourse? If it is loud and unreasonable noise, it might be actionable as disturbing the peace.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      So in the case of the infamous video about being a single female in New York, from the POV of California law, all of the male "transgressors" in that video were simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. (Had the events happened in downtown San Francisco.)
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So in the case of the infamous video about being a single female in New York, from the POV of California law, all of the male "transgressors" in that video were simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. IIRC, the video doesn't actually follow the fact pattern of the hypothetical upthread (its not limited to examples of a conversation being initiated, declined, and pursued), and does include things which might reasonably be included within some aspects of California's laws on criminal threats and/or disturbing the peace. But, generally, yes, lots of rude and offensive behavior is neither criminal nor even civilly actionable, just rude.
        stcredzero 10y ago
        IIRC, the video doesn't actually follow the fact pattern of the hypothetical upthread (its not limited to examples of a conversation being initiated, declined, and pursued), and does include things which might reasonably be included within some aspects of California's laws on criminal threats and/or disturbing the peace. IIRC, "examples of a conversation being initiated, declined, and pursued" were the worst examples shown. Everything else could possibly be argued as "disturbing the peace" but could also have been seen as one person saying something to a passer-by.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    It's one thing to be expressing yourself. It's another thing to be told that it's coming across as a transgression, then go out of your way to continue.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      You don't get to decide, unilaterally, that someone else's speech constitutes "transgression". Transgression of what? I'm curious what you think the state or society should do to someone who isn't breaking any laws. Do you really think the state should get involved if someone ignores your demand to stop talking to you?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]