Re:Why I don't use my real photo when messaging with custome...
by naikrovek on Friday February 16, 2018 @03:27PM
(#16395787)
But that's just a single instance, and by definition not harassment.
Unless my understanding of the word "multiple" (and "persistently" and "continually") is completely wrong...
Re:Why I don't use my real photo when messaging with custome...
by rectang on Friday February 16, 2018 @03:53PM
(#16396096)
Harassment does not require "multiple". That's just wrong.
Re:Why I don't use my real photo when messaging with custome...
by naikrovek on Friday February 16, 2018 @04:33PM
(#16396586)
The dictionary of definition DEFINITELY does. (Caps for emphasis, not yelling.)
Re:Why I don't use my real photo when messaging with custome...
by rectang on Friday February 16, 2018 @05:20PM
(#16397004)
It is not a requirement. Consider the Oxford English definition:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment
> Aggressive pressure or intimidation. ‘they face daily harassment and assault on the streets’
English doesn't have a definitive dictionary, anyway -- usage determines meaning. It has been the case for decades that a single quid pro quo proposal could be ruled as "harassment" in court. (As it should be!) Is it any wonder that colloquial understanding would reflect legal reality?
That's simply wrong -- a single egregious instance can certainly constitute harassment, both in terms of common sense and in terms of legal consequences. What matters is severity -- and though repeating the behavior makes it more likely to be judged as severe, one bad incident can easily exceed the threshold. A quid-pro-quo proposal of sex-for-promotion is a perfect example.