4 ms·

I think there is a relatively well-defined, if somewhat broad, line that borders between free speech and harassment. For example, suppose that I were to write

by geuis 15y ago

I think there is a relatively well-defined, if somewhat broad, line that borders between free speech and harassment. For example, suppose that I were to write a couple of articles saying what a bad, unreliable programmer you were. Any time someone asked me what I thought of your programming skills, I would tell them that they're lousy and no one should hire you. Further, I go on to Twitter, Google+, HN, and Facebook and make a few comments about what a bad experience I had working with you. Maybe some of the people I know also know you. In my understanding, that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm not making direct personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you, although I'm not saying great things about you. There might be a case for civil libel there, but it would be a tough argument and would most likely need to be solved in court via lawsuit. Now lets take that scenario further. I think you're a shitty, horrible human being. Not only do I write a couple of articles about what a bad programmer you are, I go on to talk about how anyone that knows you should kick you in the ass or push you in front of a car. I start finding out background info like where you live, who your family is, what your phone number is. I start giving out all of your personal information. I start calling your house at odd hours, breathing heavy, and hanging up. I do that 20x a night for weeks on end. You change your number. I find out what your new one is. On Twitter, I create hundreds of fake accounts and send you DM's and @'s with some really awful messages. I start dropping indirect hints that I think you deserve to die. I do the same thing anywhere I can find you online. Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment. I get arrested and my lawyer claims that was my free speech. Total bullshit. So when I say I believe there's a well-defined but broad line it encompasses those two extremes. I believe the big defining difference is that if I say or do something to you, that's personal. If I say something about you, it leans towards public. There's of course all kinds of ways I can say stuff about you and have it be very personal though. So I think that issues like this are going to often be on a case-by-case basis because it can cover a range of scenarios. I might say something about you that you feel is harassment while to any 3rd party observer its obviously free speech, and vice-versa.

hammerdr 15y ago
And, for this particular instance, standing in a room of 20 people, saying things like, "You are a terrible person. You make puppies cry. Someone should hurt you." over and over without actually talking directly "to" that person but with everyone knowing who "You" is is harassment. Being in public does not preclude harassment. Not mentioning a person by name does not preclude harassment. Note: IANAL. Not sure if this is the "legal" definition but it certainly seems like the right one.
sliverstorm 15y ago
that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm not making direct personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you, although I'm not saying great things about you Your understanding is not correct. You are discussing territory involving slander/defamation laws. Slander and defamation are crimes. The important thing to know about slander/defamation is that, at least in the US it is not considered slander or defamation if it is provably true. Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment It's a whole host of things, many of which are wholly unrelated to free speech.
- chc 15y ago
  It's also not slander or libel if it can't be proven factually (e.g. "He's a jackass" isn't slander because thete's no concrete fact being communicated) or if it seemed likely enough to be true. (Note: Not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, but I've spent many years in the newspaper industry, where this stuff comes up regularly.) This is also radically different in the UK, where someone was successfully sued for slander because he pointed out that medical studies indicated certain techniques were ineffective.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    This is also radically different in the UK Hence the "At least in the US..." caveat! I still can't imagine living in a world where truth is not a defense against libel.
  - dagw 15y ago
    where someone was successfully sued for slander because he pointed out that medical studies indicated certain techniques were ineffective. Who? When? Where? If you're talking about the Simon Singh case then a) Mr Singh won the cases and b) he wasn't sued for claiming the techniques where ineffective, but for claiming the that BCA was promoting techniques they themselves knew where bogus. UK libel and slander laws may be fucked, but they're not THAT fucked.
    - chc 15y ago

by geuis 15y ago

hammerdr 15y ago

And, for this particular instance, standing in a room of 20 people, saying things like, "You are a terrible person. You make puppies cry. Someone should hurt you." over and over without actually talking directly "to" that person but with everyone knowing who "You" is is harassment. Being in public does not preclude harassment. Not mentioning a person by name does not preclude harassment. Note: IANAL. Not sure if this is the "legal" definition but it certainly seems like the right one.

sliverstorm 15y ago

that scenario isn't harassment but it is free speech. I'm not making direct personal attacks against you and I'm not threatening you, although I'm not saying great things about you Your understanding is not correct. You are discussing territory involving slander/defamation laws. Slander and defamation are crimes. The important thing to know about slander/defamation is that, at least in the US it is not considered slander or defamation if it is provably true. Now in that 2nd, really fucked up scenario, that's harassment It's a whole host of things, many of which are wholly unrelated to free speech.

chc 15y ago
It's also not slander or libel if it can't be proven factually (e.g. "He's a jackass" isn't slander because thete's no concrete fact being communicated) or if it seemed likely enough to be true. (Note: Not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, but I've spent many years in the newspaper industry, where this stuff comes up regularly.) This is also radically different in the UK, where someone was successfully sued for slander because he pointed out that medical studies indicated certain techniques were ineffective.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  This is also radically different in the UK Hence the "At least in the US..." caveat! I still can't imagine living in a world where truth is not a defense against libel.
- dagw 15y ago
  where someone was successfully sued for slander because he pointed out that medical studies indicated certain techniques were ineffective. Who? When? Where? If you're talking about the Simon Singh case then a) Mr Singh won the cases and b) he wasn't sued for claiming the techniques where ineffective, but for claiming the that BCA was promoting techniques they themselves knew where bogus. UK libel and slander laws may be fucked, but they're not THAT fucked.
  - chc 15y ago