re: Referee Harassment Bill

quote:

---

Again, the statute posted in the OP says "fear of receiving bodily harm", not "feels threatened or has emotional distress". If I'm missing that somewhere, show me where.

---

When I first looked (a bit before I posted - I had another post I was going to make but decided against it), the latest version seemed to be the reengrossed version which included the following language:

quote:

---

(2) For purposes of this Paragraph, harassment shall include verbal or non verbal behavior by the offender that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety, to feel alarmed, or to suffer emotional distress

---

And clearly, the enrolled bill only has the following language:

quote:

---

(2) For purposes of this Paragraph, "harassment" shall include verbal or non verbal behavior by the offender that would cause a reasonable person to be placed in fear of receiving bodily harm.

---

So we can say we were both technically right, depending on your linear viewpoint.

quote:

---

Also, "fear of receiving bodily harm" is basically the same thing as "placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery".

---

Exactly. We don't need ANOTHER law to handle what is already codified. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books.

All this does is basically try to stop "verbal and non verbal behavior" toward a fairly limited group of people. The verbal part could conceivably be an infringement on First Amendment rights which leads to more wasted money on court challenges. And the non verbal stuff sounds very subjective and subsequently hard to enforce in any regular manner.