Perfectly within his rights. Yep (well, maybe, I don't really know. But for the sake of argument: Yep). But dick moves are the type of thing that cause bounds

Perfectly within his rights. Yep (well, maybe, I don't really know. But for the sake of argument: Yep). But dick moves are the type of thing that cause bounds of rights to be changed. We're not lawyers here (or are, and are already aware that we're not before a court). In a conversation of what actions are tolerable to a society, laws can be changed. Without going on pedantic tangents about this or that, I just want to point out that: in general appealing to the law without making a case for the law looks like circular reasoning because changing the law (or using other, existing, laws to alleviate problems caused by the first one) is within scope of the conversation. That's probably why your post is currently gray.