3 ms·

Yes, that probably is a legal activity. However, someone could sue for a restraining order. After that, and possibly further lawsuits, that activity would becom

by xapata 10y ago

Yes, that probably is a legal activity. However, someone could sue for a restraining order. After that, and possibly further lawsuits, that activity would become illegal for you. The possibilities of human behavior are infinite. We don't need to and can't enumerate all possible bad behaviors as illegal. Thus the civil court system. On the second thought, I think there's some law against publishing images of people without their consent in some circumstances. I'm not clear on exactly what is allowed, but I know that TV broadcasters post notices in places that they are filming.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Yes, that probably is a legal activity. However, someone could sue for a restraining order. A restraining order is issued for either actually illegal activity, or for activity whose legal status is in dispute, and which would irreparably negatively impact a party in the case in which it that status was in dispute, or for activity which might straddle the line of legality but which is related to a broader pattern of activity which was found to be illegal. Its not done for specifically legal activity. > The possibilities of human behavior are infinite. We don't need and can't enumerate all possible bad behaviors as illegal. Thus the civil court system. The civil court system is for addressing things which are illegal -- violations of the law -- but which are not violation of criminal law. The civil court system applies those things prohibited in civil law, it does not substitute for having laws to determine what is prohibited.
- grkvlt 10y ago
  No, a restraining order is issued when someone is performing actions that, taken individually, are legal - recording a link between an SSID and a street address, knocking on an ex-girlfriends door to ask them to talk to you, photographing a child - but when carried out systematically, constitute a pattern of behaviour that is undesirable, and by virtue of the order becomes illegal. Sometimes the pattern itself is also illegal, if it falls under harassment or stalking laws. Generally restraining orders prevent you from doing things that are otherwise legal, such as being within 50m of some person, or within 300m of a particular place or type of place, or sending a message, e-mail or similar to someone.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > No, a restraining order is issued when someone is performing actions that, taken individually, are legal - recording a link between an SSID and a street address, knocking on an ex-girlfriends door to ask them to talk to you, photographing a child - but when carried out systematically, constitute a pattern of behaviour that is undesirable, and by virtue of the order becomes illegal. The subset of restraining orders (sometimes called "protective" orders) you are thinking of are available when something illegal has been done, and relate to patterns of activity related to that illegal thing. For California, there are several kinds [0] of such orders: (1) Domestic Violence Restraining Order: available if someone close to you in specific ways defined in law has abused you in specific ways defined in law as acts of domestic violence. (2) Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order: available if you are elderly or disabled and have been a victim of certain kinds of abuse. (3) Civil Harassment Restraining Order: available if you are being harassed or stalked, etc., by someone not close enough to be covered by a domestic violence restraining order. (4) Workplace Violence Restraining Order: available to an employer to protect an employee that has been a victim of stalking, harassment, violence, or serious threats. Now, yes, they sometimes cover acts which would not otherwise be illegal, but they actual require something illegal to have happened as their basis (a temporary restraining order can be issued on the claim that such a thing has occurred, and a permanent restraining order only after a hearing to determine that.) [0] http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      Would obsessive public surveillance not qualify as "stalking"?
      - clort 10y ago
        In the scenario that kuschku suggested, taking a photo of each child and following them home to record the location (once) would probably not count as stalking IMO but its difficult to say. In the UK it has to happen twice, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

by xapata 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Yes, that probably is a legal activity. However, someone could sue for a restraining order. A restraining order is issued for either actually illegal activity, or for activity whose legal status is in dispute, and which would irreparably negatively impact a party in the case in which it that status was in dispute, or for activity which might straddle the line of legality but which is related to a broader pattern of activity which was found to be illegal. Its not done for specifically legal activity. > The possibilities of human behavior are infinite. We don't need and can't enumerate all possible bad behaviors as illegal. Thus the civil court system. The civil court system is for addressing things which are illegal -- violations of the law -- but which are not violation of criminal law. The civil court system applies those things prohibited in civil law, it does not substitute for having laws to determine what is prohibited.

grkvlt 10y ago
No, a restraining order is issued when someone is performing actions that, taken individually, are legal - recording a link between an SSID and a street address, knocking on an ex-girlfriends door to ask them to talk to you, photographing a child - but when carried out systematically, constitute a pattern of behaviour that is undesirable, and by virtue of the order becomes illegal. Sometimes the pattern itself is also illegal, if it falls under harassment or stalking laws. Generally restraining orders prevent you from doing things that are otherwise legal, such as being within 50m of some person, or within 300m of a particular place or type of place, or sending a message, e-mail or similar to someone.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > No, a restraining order is issued when someone is performing actions that, taken individually, are legal - recording a link between an SSID and a street address, knocking on an ex-girlfriends door to ask them to talk to you, photographing a child - but when carried out systematically, constitute a pattern of behaviour that is undesirable, and by virtue of the order becomes illegal. The subset of restraining orders (sometimes called "protective" orders) you are thinking of are available when something illegal has been done, and relate to patterns of activity related to that illegal thing. For California, there are several kinds [0] of such orders: (1) Domestic Violence Restraining Order: available if someone close to you in specific ways defined in law has abused you in specific ways defined in law as acts of domestic violence. (2) Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order: available if you are elderly or disabled and have been a victim of certain kinds of abuse. (3) Civil Harassment Restraining Order: available if you are being harassed or stalked, etc., by someone not close enough to be covered by a domestic violence restraining order. (4) Workplace Violence Restraining Order: available to an employer to protect an employee that has been a victim of stalking, harassment, violence, or serious threats. Now, yes, they sometimes cover acts which would not otherwise be illegal, but they actual require something illegal to have happened as their basis (a temporary restraining order can be issued on the claim that such a thing has occurred, and a permanent restraining order only after a hearing to determine that.) [0] http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    Would obsessive public surveillance not qualify as "stalking"?
    - clort 10y ago
      In the scenario that kuschku suggested, taking a photo of each child and following them home to record the location (once) would probably not count as stalking IMO but its difficult to say. In the UK it has to happen twice, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking