Again, I don't post links to American Nihilist, but Casper is arguing that my wishes not to be contacted don't matter --- that he has a right to comment at this blog and send emails --- whenever he chooses --- and that these in fact are not harassing communications as defined by state and federal laws. Casper is wrong. He is harassing. He commented at my Fiat post for sole purpose to annoy. Seriously. Nothing "prohibits" him from commenting, so he comments even after he's been told repeatedly to stay away? And why? To indicate his disapproval and to reprove me for my posting. That's it. In other words, to say fuck you and your blog, you are wrong, and I'm going to link to the proof in the comments whether you like it or not. Fuck you, Douglas. You wishes don't mean shit. You're on the Internet and I don't like you and I'm going to let you know, since you are a bad man.
I will be continuing my contacts to the authorities this week. It's a time consuming process. Meanwhile, the Halt Abuse website I linked to earlier has this discussion, which goes to show clearly and without a doubt that Casper's contacts are indeed harassing and designed to annoy and cause psychological disruption. See, "It It Harassment?":
First, you need to determine whether or not what you're experiencing is truly harassment.Casper has been "told to go away" repeatedly. He is by definition harassing.
Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:
"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."
This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease.
If someone simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly, that isn't harassment. Someone who sends you a single email message that isn't overtly threatening probably hasn't harassed you. Spam, while very annoying, isn't harassment. And messages posted to any open venue, such as a newsgroup, a web-based board, an AOL discussion forum or a chat room, are seldom truly harassing unless they're forged to appear to come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements. The same goes for things said on someone else's web site. Harassment usually involves repeated communications via email or some sort of instant messaging program after the harasser has clearly been told to go away.
I think I've said this a couple of times, but for people who are now just coming to this debate and are ill-informed: This is not exclusively about Walter James Casper III. This is a fight over an idea, the concept that there is right and wrong in the world, and that evil will indeed triumph over good if people of right don't stand up to defend decency.
Claiming that another person's wishes to be left alone at the blog are meaningless and that absent legal prohibitions it's perfectly fine to harass someone is the definition of evil in my book. Casper has made repeated comments at the blog and he's sent emails when comments have been closed to prevent the abuse. That's harassment. Walter James Casper III has been warned away. So no. Casper has not "won." Casper will never "win," because his evil cannot defeat me, no matter what happens with this blog. I refuse to be harassed with impunity. I refuse to be intimidated by a liar and sociopath who is the epitome of the radical left's program to silence all dissent from the collectivist narrative.
Something's gonna change. You watch.