Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam

Just got the annual distribution of the harassment policy, and something really popped out at me.

Under "Examples of harassing behavior may include, but are not limited to", one of the bullet points reads:

Comments, either verbal or written, that are interpreted as threatening

It's pretty much boilerplate legalese, but it makes me wonder. I know that intent is notoriously difficult to prove, but relying on interpretation seems disintuitive. I suppose in a legal sense it opens the door for a judge's interpretation of the events, or at least some sort of arbitration. But it seems that leaving the wording as vague as that opens up the door for lawsuits.

I'm just surprised is all.

  • (no subject)

    It finally happened. It had to, really. I was in the bottom two cut from LJ-Idol this week. I made it to the top 50, from some rather larger…

  • Mayville

    "Too many bats in the belfry, eh?" The question came from a small man in the scrubs-and-robe garb of an inmate. He looked a little like a garden…

  • LJ-Idol

    Another batch of entries. Consistently amazed at how good the writing is. Voting is open for…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.