Ministry of Truth?

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 07:17 PM)Dill Wrote:  The objection that harassment is “subjective,” and so can’t be defined, is canceled by the existence of a legal domain in which it IS defined.  The online environment is different from a workplace in some respects (perhaps except where it is the workplace), but with this already existing example, one can imagine some of it modeling adaptation to online environments, mutatis mutandis.

One can also imagine there were once objections to criminalizing workplace harassment similar to those currently raised by regulating the internet: “Calling you ‘hotpants’ is not a violation of your silly ‘rights’ for chrissake; it’s a COMPLEMENT! Get over it. Fella has a right to express himself without people getting all bent out of shape and calling the law. That’s what REALLY creates a toxic work environment. If sweet talkin’ the ladies is a crime, then, we’re on a slippery slope to losin’ all our freedoms.” Bosses, and judges, likely agreed with this for decades.

So legal intervention only got purchase in this domain because eventually people could show harm in a courtroom—e.g., discrimination in promotion and hiring, damaged health, monetary loss, etc. I would not exclude changes in morality, either, as that is one (changing) foundation of “justice.” And it is quite possible that some anti-harassment laws came into being BEFORE they had majority support.

Regarding the possibility/eventuality of online harassment defined and subject to prosecution, I see that going forward, if at all, not by a show of hands, but by demonstrating harm to a court or to a state legislature.  Failing that, it will just remain talk and fodder for Fox, WND, Breitbart, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and maybe even our own message board.

But it’s absolutely NOT going to be decided by what one person thinks is “harassment.” Maybe youropeeyuns do it different, but not us.

Ok I have to admit I'm getting confused and lose my verve to argue a point I don't even feel like argueing. In my definition, harassment is not a violation of a basic human/democratic right. Maybe we just disagree what a basic human right constitutes.
But I'm afraid I'm walking right into a pro harassment or pro harassment tolerance position and kinda lose the common theme. Screw harassers, I want them prosecuted anyway.