In message <edb9ff669accb4467bc45d020368a190.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dan Harkins" writes: > > On Thu, March 19, 2015 3:15 pm, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > I read "local law" as meaning the law where the interaction is taking > > place. While that can get very complicated for electronic interaction, > > for the example you chose to cite it is very clear. If Charlie Hebdo's > > cover violates local law where you are reading it, you have chosen to > > ask for more trouble than just a discussion with the IETF harrasment > > ombudsman. > > Well yes, but doesn't that beg the question? > > If I have done something that asks for more trouble than a mere > talking to by the IETF harassment ombudsman then why have the > IETF harassment ombudsman get involved in the first place? If the > authorities behind "local law" are going to be handling it then let > that legal process work itself out. No need to get the IETF involved > in meting out punishment that may ultimately expose it to potential > abuses of someone's due process and 14th amendment rights. > > regards, > > Dan. In many places certain types of harrasment is against the law but that doesn't preclude mediation, etc. being applied before people are charged etc. Harrasment covers a whole spectrum of actions. Some minor. Some major. The perceived severity can vary according to the history of the people involved. The whole issue is all shades of grey. Having proceedures in place and a willingness to follow them can prevent people being charged in the first place. There is often a lot of disgression about the paths to take. Being charges creates a blight of a record even if you are cleared. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx