Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd so it begins:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling?ref=opinion
Are you serious?
First of all, letting cops make the call is a frightening thought.
Secondly, how is anyone going to prove any specific person said any specific thing on the street? Or didn't say it?
Third, certain legal definitions come into play. Civil or criminal assault is defined by a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Anything less is not assault. Harassment needs to be threatening.
So now we're extending criminal liability to female insecurities. What's next, a woman's emotional response to the way a man looks at her?
Fourth, obviously, Freedom of Speech. Obscenity has been best characterized by the Supreme Court as "you know it when you see it," but is really has to appeal only to the "prurient and morbid interest in sex." Catcalls, while certainly uncouth, are typically not obscene. Beyond that, I fail to see how this passes equal protection, because the law would have both discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact against men.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling?ref=opinion
Are you serious?
First of all, letting cops make the call is a frightening thought.
Secondly, how is anyone going to prove any specific person said any specific thing on the street? Or didn't say it?
Third, certain legal definitions come into play. Civil or criminal assault is defined by a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Anything less is not assault. Harassment needs to be threatening.
So now we're extending criminal liability to female insecurities. What's next, a woman's emotional response to the way a man looks at her?
Fourth, obviously, Freedom of Speech. Obscenity has been best characterized by the Supreme Court as "you know it when you see it," but is really has to appeal only to the "prurient and morbid interest in sex." Catcalls, while certainly uncouth, are typically not obscene. Beyond that, I fail to see how this passes equal protection, because the law would have both discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact against men.