Tracy Clark Fiory:

Hollaback, the anti-street-harassment group that has made a name for itself by publicizing photos women snap of their harassers, "is pushing the city to commission a study, a public awareness campaign and perhaps even legislation, including 'no-harassment zones' around schools to protect young women," the Associated Press reports. The women's issues committee says it's open to the possibility of legislation of some sort, but "a key issue would be enforcement, since the concept of no-harassment zones could encroach on First Amendment rights," says the AP.

Perpetuating the myth that women can only be victims of harassment, and men can only be the victimizers.

What is this "no-harassment zone" nonsense? The very name suggests that there are places where harassment is appropriate. What a stupid idea. Reminiscent of Bush's "free-speech zones" because the little boy-king couldn't have his tender sensibilities offended by even seeing, much less being confronted by, people who don't like him.

(One for the masculinity thread: Dubya is a definitive emasculated, wussified pansy.)

The whole nation is a free speech zone and no-harassment zone.

BUT AMY! Words hurt! They really really hurt! You don't know the pain of suffering as three small children run after you screaming HELLO! HELLO! What's you name? HELLO?

Yet another law they will not be enforced unless to just make someones life miserable. Let's ignore the one hundred woman who where wolf whistled at and concentrate on that one lesbian, celebrity, politician or victim who got harassed at by somebody ( and previously had nothing else in which to stop the person) and now charge them or fine them!

Yep the government finally got ole Al C on tax evasion charges!

Amy, take a look at the Hollaback website, especially the faqs: http://www.ihollaback.org/about/faqs/

Sigh, their website has actually gotten harder to use over the years, but, what the website does is print anonymous accusations (stories) of an alleged harassment, and usually accompanies that with a picture of the alleged harassers.

Now look back at the faqs. If you have been accused of harassment, and you want to deny it, and take it down, who do you contact? What is the process?

Anyway, I think it's a very bogus, downright dangerous and undemocratic organization that deserves to have a murder of lawyers harassing them in court for libel / slander.

But you could have a field day with the assumptions and sexism in their faqs and how they run that website.

Next are "eye rape" charges.

"Next are "eye rape" charges."

Next for the city council maybe, but of course, "eye rape" is already a feminist theory. It's really a wonderful feminist theory, because they took it from a film theory about the relationship of the camera to the director/writer, added no actual real life data or evidence, and turned it into an In Real Life theory about how men control women.

Legislation - n. - the process by which a police state is installed, generally due to the public's inability to cope with reality on an individual level.

Male Gaze (Eye Rape)

Or, if you're not enough of a grown-up to ignore it or retort, maybe move to a city/state where there are men around who will defend a woman getting harassed, i.e., somewhere other than NYC.

I like the picture snapping idea. That's better than trashing the constitution.

Apparently rape eye has it's consequences

http://www.allowe.com/Humor/whymendieyounger.htm

I like the picture snapping idea too. Amy, don't you take pictures of misbehaving people in your neighborhood? One of my friends does that too.

I like their picture snapping idea and wrote about it in my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society. (Here's a link for anyone who has yet to buy it!)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071600213?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0071600213

Assault speech is not free speech! Death penalty for any male who hurts a womyn's feelings!

The more egregious examples that they're highlighting are already illegal. Menacing, threats, intimidation, and public nuisance can all be dealt with under the current criminal code. The police will also intervene in situations where there isn't a clear infraction, but which may escalate. For instance, if a group of guys are hanging out in a public park and being lude towards women there, or some guy is approaching girls around a high school. So there are ways to address the problem without codifying a speech code for public spaces. It's a matter of enforcement.

Then there's also the fact that some encounters will fall below a reasonable standard for harassment. But as we've seen with sexual harassment in workplaces, there are people who are prone to feeling harassed. You'd have to impose a veritable police state to accommodate them.

there are people who are prone to feeling harassed. You'd have to impose a veritable police state to accommodate them.

You make that sound like a bad thing. A police state is exactly what we need.

Picture snapping is fine, if there is any sort of accountability and takedown process posted.

Otherwise it's just anonymous smear and libel.

And in Hollaback's case, it's an organized campaign of smear and libel with no accountability and very sexist policies in place.

There is a difference between Amy Alkon, posting on her blog that promptly identifies her and provides contact information, a photograph of some miscreant in action, and what Hollaback is doing.

It's also the case as can be seen in this thread, that Amy would probably not be posting the picture of some random guy doing something random but not quite clear in the context of a picture, and yet, that's precisely the kind of picture Hollaback excels at, as long as it's accompanied with a much more lurid story.

And to repeat myself Hollaback provides no way to have pictures removed or having a rebuttal posted, short it seems, of getting an attorney involved.

As much as I think the street harassment is wrong, I tend to think their behavior despicable and should be actionable, and not because I was prominently featured in October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, much of 2009, and a few weeks ago.

Assault speech is not free speech! Death penalty for any male who hurts a womyn's feelings!

there are people who are prone to feeling harassed. You'd have to impose a veritable police state to accommodate them.

You make that sound like a bad thing. A police state is exactly what we need.

Laughed my ass off at these. Thanks Dee

Man... seriously. People need to grow up, and the feminist movement doubly so! Do they not understand that things like this only serve to perpetuate the women-as-victims mindset? I am a big girl and can take care of myself if someone catcalls at me on a street. Moreover, I have been doing so since I was fourteen! Women are not toddlers needing constant supervision and protection from words and thoughts. If the Offensiveness Police had their way, we'd all be living in Victorian kindergarten! Jeez!

People take themselves WAY too seriously. Personally, I'd rather be looked over than over-looked. (You can thank Mae West for that one!)

They told me I was gullible... and I believe them.