~ archived since 2018 ~

The difference between cute and creepy. [xpost /r/funny]

mmomjian

September 8, 2011

65 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The difference between cute and creepy. [xpost /r/funny]
Author	mmomjian
Upvotes	65
Comments	134
Date	September 8, 2011 3:56 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/k8xao/the_difference_between_cute_and_creepy_xpost/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-difference-between-cute-and-creepy-xpost.1034895 https://theredarchive.com/post/1034895

Comments

[–]xzxzzx 57 points58 points59 points 14 years ago (119 children) | Copy Link

[–]Indog 29 points30 points31 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bushiz 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cluisanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Indog 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brunt20 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brunt20 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brunt20 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spiral-staircase 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spiral-staircase 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]quizzle -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I see your point.

Perhaps we should frame this issue the same way that feminists frame slut-shaming. Because essentially, the label "creep" is used by women as a shaming word just like slut is used against women. And feminists are not especially worried that their efforts to raise awareness of slut-shaming as tool of oppression is "driving away curious, moderate people who aren't informed about feminist issues."

So I suggest framing the issue this way: just like it's not acceptable to label a woman a slut because you don't like what she's wearing, it's not acceptable to label a man a creep because he exercised free speech in a nonthreatening way.

If feminists have slut marches, then MRAs should have creep marches. We should get together and march through town and say "hi" to everyone we see and carry signs that say, "stop denying my freedom of speech" and such.

[–]randomrealitycheck 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

At what point does your right to free speech end?

Honestly, that anyone would even ask question scares the living shit out of me.

I would much rather live in a world filling with assholes that scream at me constantly, than live in a world where the government makes rules about what I can and cannot say. A decade ago we allowed the government to start making arbitrary rules about air travel in order to Keep Us Safe (tm). Look what they've done. Look at the slippery slope. Was anyone killed by shoe bombs? No. That bomb wouldn't have destroyed the plane even if it had gone off. But now we all have to take off our shoes to Keep Us Safe (tm). Was bottled water involved in any terrorst attack? Nope. But now we can't have bottled water. Nail clippers? Nope, but we can't have those either.

The government will do the same thing if you allow it to start proscribing speech. Take a look at /r/anarchism. Moderators are technically a form of government. The moderators there believe they should make rules limiting free speech for the greater good. Look what they've done: people have been banned for saying "that's retarded." People have been for using the word "drama." People have been banned for failing to capitalize certain words.

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/j4o40/free_speech_is_bourgeois/

right to go through life without being harassed

By speech only? Well, that's admirable I guess that you want to protect everyone from hurt feelings. But the fact is, in order for you to create a society where nobody is called names that hurt their feelings, you would have to give the government powers that will inevitably lead to crazy draconian, oppressive laws. You haven't thought this all the way through. You don't realize what happens when you release that monster.

You want to do something good, but you'd end up having something bad. You're thinking exactly the same way that the drug prohibitionists thought. Want to live in a world without drugs? Fine! Let's have the government set that up for us! But look what we have today. Random roadside security checkpoints just like they had in the USSR. Cops will seize your cash without any evidence that it's drug money. Our police force has been a paramilitary gang that breaks down doors and kicks people's ass. All in the name of a war on drugs, that some people thought would be a good idea.

The bottom line is, the right to free speech is too important to be limited, even though sometimes people have their feelings hurt. I promise you, a world where people are sometimes called names is better than a world where the government dictates what you can and cannot say.

In summary, my answer is: so long as you do not threaten a person, or physically touch them, or block their way, you have the legal right to say whatever you want. It's ugly, but it's better than the alternative.

[–]randomrealitycheck 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, that anyone would even ask question scares the living shit out of me.

Really? So you believe that I have the right to come into your house and threaten your children (to use an absurd example)?

Maybe you might want to reconsider your beliefs.

I would much rather live in a world filling with assholes that scream at me constantly, than live in a world where the government makes rules about what I can and cannot say.

The government already has that power and I back it to the extent they do.

You have no right to libel or slander anyone.

You have no right to threaten another individual.

What problem do you have with those laws?

A decade ago we allowed the government to start making arbitrary rules about air travel in order to Keep Us Safe (tm). Look what they've done. Look at the slippery slope. Was anyone killed by shoe bombs? No. That bomb wouldn't have destroyed the plane even if it had gone off.

This has nothing to do with free speech.

That bomb wouldn't have destroyed the plane even if it had gone off. But now we all have to take off our shoes to Keep Us Safe (tm). Was bottled water involved in any terrorst attack? Nope. But now we can't have bottled water. Nail clippers? Nope, but we can't have those either.

Then fix that problem, don't start creating other ones that don't exist.

The government will do the same thing if you allow it to start proscribing speech. Take a look at /r/anarchism. Moderators are technically a form of government. The moderators there believe they should make rules limiting free speech for the greater good. Look what they've done: people have been banned for saying "that's retarded." People have been for using the word "drama." People have been banned for failing to capitalize certain words.

What part of this isn't a government site are you having trouble understanding. This site is exactly like any other privately owned property - they get to decide what you can and cannot say here.

Do you think you can walk into a restaurant and start screaming about whatever you want without being asked to leave? And if you don't leave when asked you can and should be arrested for trespassing.

By speech only? Well, that's admirable I guess that you want to protect everyone from hurt feelings.

This has nothing to do with hurt feelings. It has to do with my right, your right and our children's right to not be hassled - or don't you believe that you have a right to go through live without some asshole getting into your face and screaming at you?

But the fact is, in order for you to create a society where nobody is called names that hurt their feelings, you would have to give the government powers that will inevitably lead to crazy draconian, oppressive laws.

Where the hell did you get that from what I said?

You haven't thought this all the way through. You don't realize what happens when you release that monster.

One of us has no idea what they're talking about - and it isn't me.

You want to do something good, but you'd end up having something bad. You're thinking exactly the same way that the drug prohibitionists thought. Want to live in a world without drugs? Fine! Let's have the government set that up for us! But look what we have today. Random roadside security checkpoints just like they had in the USSR. Cops will seize your cash without any evidence that it's drug money. Our police force has been a paramilitary gang that breaks down doors and kicks people's ass. All in the name of a war on drugs, that some people thought would be a good idea.

You're not even on the same page as I am. Christ, I understand that there are abuses of power, you don't seem to understand what freedom of speech actually means in the context of the First Amendment.

The bottom line is, the right to free speech is too important to be limited, even though sometimes people have their feelings hurt. I promise you, a world where people are sometimes called names is better than a world where the government dictates what you can and cannot say.

Bullshit.

With that said, I believe deeply in free speech. While I detest the Westboro Baptist Church and have nothing but contempt for the American Nazi Party, they have every bit as much right to express their views as you or I do - until they cross the line from public property onto private. And even public property isn't wide open. If you have any doubts, next time you appear in court tell me how much you can express yourself after the judge tells you to be silent.

The bottom line is, the right to free speech is too important to be limited, even though sometimes people have their feelings hurt. I promise you, a world where people are sometimes called names is better than a world where the government dictates what you can and cannot say.

You're way off the tangent here and not answering what I asked you.

In summary, my answer is: so long as you do not threaten a person, or physically touch them, or block their way, you have the legal right to say whatever you want. It's ugly, but it's better than the alternative.

And that is not the case. You're wrong and in a very profound way.

[–]thedevguy -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]randomrealitycheck 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

where do you believe that line should be drawn?

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/k8xao/the_difference_between_cute_and_creepy_xpost/c2im7vc

"As long as someone does not physically touch you, actually threaten you, block your way, or deprive you your property"

There are already legal restrictions on free speech

Libel and slander are civil torts. Those are irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking bout what the power the government should have to limit your speech. We're talking about criminal law.

My answer is: none.

So long as you do not physically touch someone, materially threaten them, block their way, or deprive them of property, the government should not limit your speech. The idea that the government would make rules to prevent your feelings from getting hurt scares me.

What part of this isn't a government site are you having trouble understanding.

the conversation stops here. You will go back and read what I wrote about /r/anarchism and how I used it as an example of what happens when people have the power to govern speech. You will either acknowledge my point (even if you disagree with it) or we will talk no further. I wont waste any more time on someone who can't comprehend so important a point.

The mods of /r/anarchism have the power to regulate speech. And they inevitably became totalitarian.

If you give the government the power to regulate speech, they will become totalitarian.

Acknowledge that point (though you are free to disagree) and acknowledge that I'm not suggesting that this is a government website if you want to continue our conversation.

[–]randomrealitycheck 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"As long as someone does not physically touch you, actually threaten you, block your way, or deprive you your property"

Then someone can walk up to you and your family on the street and say whatever they want? I don't think so. I have a right to walk down the street without having some asshole invade my peace and quiet. In this case the government is justified in charging anyone who would do so with disturbing the peace.

Libel and slander are civil torts. Those are irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking bout what the power the government should have to limit your speech. We're talking about criminal law.

Ah, splitting hairs. Civil law cannot violate the Constitution and are therefore government enforcement of what is acceptable speech.

So long as you do not physically touch someone, materially threaten them, block their way, or deprive them of property, the government should not limit your speech. The idea that the government would make rules to prevent your feelings from getting hurt scares me.

Really now...

So you would have no problem with some perv walking down the street and graphically telling your sixteen year old daughter all the things he'd like to do with her?

That's protected speech in your mind?

the conversation stops here. You will go back and read what I wrote about /r/anarchism and how I used it as an example of what happens when people have the power to govern speech. You will either acknowledge my point (even if you disagree with it) or we will talk no further. I wont waste any more time on someone who can't comprehend so important a point.

Okay, restate what you meant. I read it as you using /r/anarchism as an example and this is private property. What did I miss?

And let's get one thing out of the way here, just because you write something and it makes sense to you doesn't mean that I am going to read it in the same context.

The mods of /r/anarchism have the power to regulate speech. And they inevitably became totalitarian.

Mods everywhere have exactly that right - and not everywhere stifles free speech. When a problem does occur then we should act to stop it - not before.

And as a counter to that, mods do serve a useful purpose given that without them there have been several sites that have folded due to trolls preventing any kind of meaningful exchange from happening.

If you give the government the power to regulate speech, they will become totalitarian.

I don't agree with that statement. Yes, some governments would, maybe even most, but to make a blanket statement like that suggests that no government can survive without becoming totalitarian.

Acknowledge that point (though you are free to disagree) and acknowledge that I'm not suggesting that this is a government website if you want to continue our conversation.

Let's see if I get your statement correctly.

Either I say what you want me to say or we cannot continue this conversation?

Do you have any idea how much you just undercut your point?

[–]thedevguy -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

splitting hairs

lol. It's a fundamental difference. It's hilarious that you don't get it.

So you would have no problem with some perv walking down the street and graphically telling your sixteen year old daughter all the things he'd like to do with her?

I'm sure that I have a problem with it. But that's not what we're talking about.

That's protected speech in your mind?

It is protected from government interference, yes. It must be. You would not want to live in a world where the government starts passing laws to stop people from getting their feelings hurt. In short order, it would go the way of /r/anarchism - you'd be fined or arrested for saying "drama" and "retarded" and so on.

I think I'm starting to understand you. You ask me if I personally have a problem with something, then your very next sentence is about what the government can do. Those two concepts are the same in your mind. If I personally find something offensive or morally objectionable (like the perv talking to my daughter) then in your mind that's reason enough for the government to step in. You see no problem with that train of thought:

a: I dislike something

b: therefore it should be illegal

To me, that's just amazingly shortsighted - it's an almost childlike world view. It's exactly the same reasoning that led to book burning, the war on drugs, r/anarchism, burqas, and a host of other oppressive policies. "I personally am offended by the way women dress - therefore it should be illegal for them to dress that way." "I personally am offended if a perv says something that hurts my feelings - therefore it should be illegal."

In my opinion, I would rather live in a free world where I can say whatever I want, even though that means my pweshious wittle feewings may be hurt sometimes.

[–]randomrealitycheck2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lol. It's a fundamental difference. It's hilarious that you don't get it.

What you don't seem to understand is that what you think is a fundamental difference is still a government imposed restriction of free speech. The law was created by the government, enforced by the government, tried in a government court and the findings of that court are carried out by the government.

One of us is missing the bigger picture and I am going to guess that the best way forward might be for us to agree to disagree and let anyone else reading this discussion to decide for themselves.

I'm sure that I have a problem with it. But that's not what we're talking about.

Actually, it i exactly what we are talking about. In the scenario I outlined the police would have the power to arrest the perv for any number of crimes, disturbing the peace among others. This is a valid use of police power, in my opinion, one that does not have a chilling effect on free speech.

It is protected from government interference, yes. It must be. You would not want to live in a world where the government starts passing laws to stop people from getting their feelings hurt.

It is a very thin line between getting one's feelings hurt and feeling threatened. At the same time, every person in this country has a right to not be harassed. I find it somewhat amazing that you apparently will not acknowledge that right.

In short order, it would go the way of /r/anarchism - you'd be fined or arrested for saying "drama" and "retarded" and so on.

Not in short - not at all. As we have both said, in a private setting, the owner has a right to determine what can be said. One has nothing to do with the other.

I think I'm starting to understand you. You ask me if I personally have a problem with something, then your very next sentence is about what the government can do. Those two concepts are the same in your mind. If I personally find something offensive or morally objectionable (like the perv talking to my daughter) then in your mind that's reason enough for the government to step in. You see no problem with that train of thought:

a: I dislike something

b: therefore it should be illegal

No, you are not understanding me in the least.

You do not have a right to walk up to my daughter and say perverted things to her. In fact, if you did and I beat you to a pulp with a baseball bat, no jury would convict me. In fact, I doubt that charges would be brought.

To me, that's just amazingly shortsighted - it's an almost childlike world view.

Yes, I'm sure.

It's exactly the same reasoning that led to book burning, the war on drugs, r/anarchism, burqas, and a host of other oppressive policies. "I personally am offended by the way women dress - therefore it should be illegal for them to dress that way." "I personally am offended if a perv says something that hurts my feelings - therefore it should be illegal."

Honest question, are you intentionally misrepresenting my position? Seriously?

Where do you see me imposing any of my views and suggesting that they should be made into law?

In my opinion, I would rather live in a free world where I can say whatever I want, even though that means my pweshious wittle feewings may be hurt sometimes.

And now who is being childlike?

I'm telling you that it is Constitutional to enforce restrictions on free speech and you are trying to say that this is not the case. I find it amusing that you have tried to say that civil law doesn't count and that only your view is valid.

God, you must hate everything this country was founded on.

[–]thedevguy0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The law was created by the government, enforced by the government, tried in a government court and the findings of that court are carried out by the government.

You really don't understand civil tort. The government facilitates the redress of grievances. The government does not impose its own will. It's the same as the difference between taxes and mortgage payments. The government provides a way for your bank to foreclose on your house if you don't pay. But that's not the same police power that will be brought to bear if you don't pay your taxes.

It's fundamentally different. Every constitutional lawyer in the land with agree with me. You're not going to win this one.

every person in this country has a right to not be harassed.

...by speech. Just to be clear, you're using the word "harassed" to refer to someone who speaks words, someone who makes no material threats, someone who does not touch you, someone who does not injure you, someone who does not block your way, someone who doesn't take your property.

All they do is pass air over their vocal cords.

But because you don't personally like the sound, that's harassment according to you. It hurts your feelings.

And people should be arrested for it - even though they didn't touch you, materially threaten you, block your way, or deprive you of property.

Just so we're clear.

[–]randomrealitycheck1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You really don't understand civil tort. The government facilitates the redress of grievances. The government does not impose its own will. It's the same as the difference between taxes and mortgage payments. The government provides a way for your bank to foreclose on your house if you don't pay. But that's not the same police power that will be brought to bear if you don't pay your taxes.

This is a bullshit argument. This is government enforced restriction on free speech - no matter how you try to reframe it. Is it civil as opposed to criminal, of course it is and I know the difference but it is still a constitutional restriction on your free speech. I will admit to this, as you are unlikely to ever admit that you are wrong in this case, you are correct, I will never win this argument - if winning is all that's important to you.

But let's talk about other constitutionally supported restrictions on free speech. I noticed that you ignored my example of how you have no free speech in a courtroom.

In fact, you are restricted from phoning in a false police report (one in which no threat is implied). You are likewise prohibited from any speech that could be construed as inciting a riot. In both examples, your right to free speech has been restricted perfectly legally and all you have to do is "speak words, someone who makes no material threats, someone who does not touch you, someone who does not injure you, someone who does not block your way, someone who doesn't take your property."

Imagine that.

But because you don't personally like the sound, that's harassment according to you. It hurts your feelings.

And yet, not once did I make that argument - even though you keep repeating it as though I did.

And people should be arrested for it - even though they didn't touch you, materially threaten you, block your way, or deprive you of property.

Isn't it amazing how you are the defender of rights - except where it is the protection of the rights of others. I have the right to walk down the street without being hassled by anyone. That right can be enforced by the police including the arrest and detainment under any number of criminal charges that have all been constitutionally challenged and stood that test.

If you don't think so, try going outside, find an attractive woman and start harassing her. When the police show up as forcefully as possible tell them that anyone who "speaks words, someone who makes no material threats, someone who does not touch you, someone who does not injure you, someone who does not block your way, someone who doesn't take your property" can't be charged with a crime.

Make sure you record this entire thing and post in on youtube - we'll be looking for exactly how sharp a legal mind you actually are.

Just so we're clear.

Yes, just so we're clear.

[–]thedevguy0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have the right to walk down the street without being hassled by anyone.

hassle is too vague a term.

And yet, not once did I make that argument - even though you keep repeating it as though I did.

Your arguments are vague. It might help if you clarified them.

Are you actually in disagreement with me?? I've said that so long as nobody materially threatens you, touches you, blocks your path, or deprives you of your property, they can say anything they want. I'm being very specific. And you come back with, "but, but, they're hassling me!!" I have no clue what that means. Maybe you're christian who thinks an atheist saying there's no god is "hassling" maybe you're a muslim who thinks an uncovered woman is a hassle.

You're just too vague.

My position is crystal clear: as long as nobody materially threatens you, touches you, blocks your path, or deprives you of your property, the government should instigate no action against them. If your precious feelings are hurt, then you can take them to civil court. You can sue anybody for any reason. Astrologers have sued NASA for messing up their predictions. Civil court is not what I'm concerned about. I'm talking about criminal law. As long as he does not materially threaten you, touch you, block your path, or deprive you of property, he should not be put in jail.

This is government enforced restriction on free speech

No, it's not. It's a civil tort. The other examples you give are where you would be held accountable for the results of your actions (even if the actions are speech) not for the speech itself. I covered this earlier in our discussion when I mentioned fire in a theater. You do in fact have the right to shout fire in a theater. You would be held accountable not for the speech, but for the injurious panic if that should occur. If it doesn't occur, then you don't go to jail - thus, the speech was not what put you in jail.

[–]randomrealitycheck1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let's back this down and keep it focused.

I have provided several examples where the government has constitutionally curtailed your free speech.

In a courtroom.
Language inciting a riot.
Calling in a false police report.
Verbal harassment leading to disturbing the peace.

I maintain that in each of the above examples the test that you applied " "speak words, someone who makes no material threats, someone who does not touch you, someone who does not injure you, someone who does not block your way, someone who doesn't take your property" is invalid but the laws are constitutional. And in not one instance is this something I don't like and want to be made illegal - even though I do support each one of those restrictions.

Now, with all that said, I am not in favor of restricting the exercise of free speech in terms of political speech but I do recognize and support limits to speech in the four examples I have laid out and there are probably more that could be brought to the discussion.

Would you care to address those points?

Speaking to civil versus criminal - no matter how you spin it, you can be sued for libel or slander and the government is the final arbitrator as to how that process is defined.

[–]ItsNotLowT 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]thedevguy -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not all guys. Probably not even most guys. I've never personally only rarely experienced any, but I've seen it, and I've heard other women talk about it.

physically touching them

All the time. Usually it's a friendly shoulder or arm touch, but it's still really really forward for someone you don't know at all. And if you're in a club or bar situation and he's drunk, some guys seem to think an ass-grab is totally appropriate.

threatening them

This one, admittedly, not so much.

blocking their way

This one I used to see all the time. It comes with the guys who think that persistance is required to get with women (usually women out of their league). They don't like to take "no" for an answer, and if forced to back down, do so grudgingly and with ill grace, which in turn made me more nervous.

depriving them of property

One ex of mine used to have a collection of panties he'd stolen from various girls at college. I guess technically I don't know if the intent was to pick them up or to just creepily stalk them.

Bottom line-- there's all kinds of guys in the world. Some are creeps. "Creep" is entirely subjective, so this is a difficult issue-- the guy may think he's just being funny or witty or following the latest PUA tip, but the girl may find him weird or crazy or off-putting. Also remember that women are told from the time they start dating, along with all the other common-sense advice about well-lit areas and buddy systems, to pay attention to their "gut feeling"-- if something feels off, it probably is, we're told. Again, I am not questioning the validity of the core issue-- that the word "creep" is thrown around by women in inappropriate situations in very damaging ways. And many of these women don't have safety concerns, they're just irritated at unwanted attention. But some guys do also have boundary issues, or do genuinely give off a not-right vibe.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Baadasssss 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Baadasssss 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Baadasssss1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thedevguy0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Let's imagine a girl who's interested in you, but you're utterly uninterested in her for whatever reason (she doesn't attract you, you don't like her, you're in a relationship; whatever).

At first she just shows up at your favorite spots, and awkwardly tries to jump into conversations -- a little annoying, but whatever. Then she's there at that bar you like -- every night. Even weekdays when you don't normally go. She starts coming up to you and whispering in your ear how she wants to come home with you, how she's so nasty and you'll love it. You ask her to stop, but she only does for that night.

Eventually she starts giving you gifts -- you mentioned you like the Bears, so she gets you a jersey, or maybe a nice watch with a Bears theme on it. You start seeing her more frequently; at the sandwich shop near your work, she's there. You ask her to stop following you, and she says "we're meant to be together".

A few more days go by, her saying "it's a free country" if you ask her to leave. Then you notice her car drive by your house. Or, you think it was her car. The next day, you notice her car drive by again, as you leave for work. You get a phone call; it's her, but you didn't give her your phone number. You hang up.

You start getting gifts in the mail, with letters attached, professing her undying love, and how you're meant to be. A knock at the door leads you outside, but there's no one there. A piece of paper is taped to your door, a heart drawn in blood on it. She's waiting at the curb.

"Creepy" encompasses these behaviors and more.

[–]thedevguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Creepy" encompasses these behaviors and more.

Yeah then you're casting your linguistic net a little too wide.

I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. I've been in a car with women saw a guy standing on the side of the road and they said, "eww! he's creepy!" He didn't so much as look at them. He doesn't know they exist. My girlfriend called a guy creepy last night. She and I were sitting on a park bench and he was standing some distance away looking in the other direction. His only crime was that he was tall and skinny and alone.

Creepy is very clearly a label used to shame men that do not meet women's behavioral expectations. You are defending that common marginalizing usage by weaving a hypothetical tale of a psycho stalker. Nice try, but the existence of an extreme case does not justify the use of the label on everybody else. You are using power. You have the power to marginalize members of society that don't do what you want them to do. Stop that. Check your privilege.

May I suggest that you either:

a. find a different word for the crazy psycho stalkers you describe (may I suggest, "crazy psycho stalker")

b. continue calling them creepy, and promise to stop marginalizing men who are minding their own business by applying the same label to them.

Which ever choice you go with. Please don't act like the issue I'm bringing up doesn't happen, or that it it's anything short of cruel.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]brunt2 -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]brunt2 -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fumunda 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Faryshta 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Petwah 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IHaveALargePenis 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dadentum 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]vyralinfection 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]vyralinfection 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vyralinfection 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mmomjian 14 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I think there's a bit of hyperbole but it's a good illustration.

[–]deadlast 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link