I oppose the part of this language that deals with electronic communications as a form of harassment, because it is inconsistent with the definition of harassment as given earlier in the code. Is this supposed to be a catch-all for things like cyber-bullying? It is difficult for me to imagine how online language rises to the level of "non-verbal conduct".
From the same ordinance: "'Harass' is defined as any repeated non-verbal conduct..."
Similarly, the definition of verbal conduct: "...any repeated verbal communications which, by its very utterance, inflicts injury..." This language that is so vague as to be easily misapplied & relies on circumstance. What words are considered injurious? Is this language designed to prevent libel? Or is this so broad as to prohibit legitimate complaint, dissatisfaction, and/or expressions of grievance? This deserves a closer look, as poorly written law too easily leads to unintended consequences & suppression of fundamental rights.
I oppose the part of this language that deals with electronic communications as a form of harassment, because it is inconsistent with the definition of harassment as given earlier in the code. Is this supposed to be a catch-all for things like cyber-bullying? It is difficult for me to imagine how online language rises to the level of "non-verbal conduct".
From the same ordinance: "'Harass' is defined as any repeated non-verbal conduct..."
Similarly, the definition of verbal conduct: "...any repeated verbal communications which, by its very utterance, inflicts injury..." This language that is so vague as to be easily misapplied & relies on circumstance. What words are considered injurious? Is this language designed to prevent libel? Or is this so broad as to prohibit legitimate complaint, dissatisfaction, and/or expressions of grievance? This deserves a closer look, as poorly written law too easily leads to unintended consequences & suppression of fundamental rights.