If we are to interpret explainer text meant to inform the public as word of law such as you have:
The civil harassment laws say “harassment” is:
Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, OR
A credible threat of violence, AND
The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it.
The actions described in the green text could be interpreted as a credible threat of violence that is seriously annoying/scaring the individual, as they specifically mention how brave it is for trans people to show themselves in public, when the victim has never initiated the discussion or topic and has made clear both that they do not qualify for the classification and are uncomfortable with the label. This, by your logic, would make it civil harassment.
Don’t look at me, you’re the one that wanted to start playing armchair attorney bud. Don’t get upset just cause you less practiced at this shitty game.
If we are to interpret explainer text meant to inform the public as word of law such as you have:
The actions described in the green text could be interpreted as a credible threat of violence that is seriously annoying/scaring the individual, as they specifically mention how brave it is for trans people to show themselves in public, when the victim has never initiated the discussion or topic and has made clear both that they do not qualify for the classification and are uncomfortable with the label. This, by your logic, would make it civil harassment.
You know what else could be considered a threat of violence? Literally anything by your standard.
Don’t look at me, you’re the one that wanted to start playing armchair attorney bud. Don’t get upset just cause you less practiced at this shitty game.