Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Doesn't matter where the material came from, there was still harassment.


sort by: page size:

It's harassment, regardless.

> It's hard for me to imagine anyone getting harassed over this

There's also harassment, which can be textual.

It's still harassment, it's just legally permissible harassment.

Unwelcome conduct from someone in the same group was already harassment. Welcome conduct from someone outside it still isn't.

what was nature of the harassment that they were getting that warranted such a strong response?

The harassment has been flowing in both directions.

The issue is that most of us don't consider harassment to be free speech.

Harassment.

How is that not harassment?

*harassment

In what ways was he harassed? I quite liked the article and agreed with its premise btw.

Harassment

It seems inconceivable that you are as well-versed in the details of this incident as you seem to be but unaware that the situation is entirely different than what you're describing.

I could see someone being ignorant of the truth and believing the very surface-level description you give here, but your subsequent comments reveal a willful ignorance on your part.

Censorship of nasty harassers would have been welcome in that case, and describing that nasty harassers as she did was hardly harassment, no matter how it might give one the vapors.


What's your point? That harassment occurs frequently and is often mishandled? I never disputed that.

Isn’t that really just harassment and intimidation?

It's political.

The harassment was excused because the harasser was traditionally a victim, and the harassed person was a white male.


And the definition of harassed

What sort of harassment?
next

Legal | privacy