[Lawtonfogle]

>The original story told about a couple of polite phonecalls where they have requested to talk with her. How does it get described as "harassment"?

As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment. Imagine this was a work setting, the FBI was a coworker of this individual, and they asked for a date. After the very first "no, please don't bring it up again" it becomes harassment.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment."

Untrue, legally, at least in the UK where at least two incidents that cause you distress are required to have been committed by the same person/group. And then it's up to a judge to decide if the 'distressing' behaviour would be considered distressing by any reasonable person.

[MacsHeadroom]

I have to imagine most people would find both of an initial and a second call from the FBI distressing.

[unlinker]

Only that this is not a sexual setting and the fact it is a "she" changes nothing in this context.

[Lawtonfogle]

I never used that word. I called it harassment, which can come in different varieties.

Upon reviewing my previous response, I don't even see where I made mention of gender even to the extent of a pronoun.

[penagwin]

The point still stands. If a person tells you to stop an action they find uncomfortable for whatever reason in any way, no matter their gender, race, etc. It becomes harassment. The FBI is a government organization that you could argue has the job of doing this, however they fail to ever state why they require her assistance (and they seem kinda rude to me).

[pc86]

> *If a person tells you to stop an action they find uncomfortable for whatever reason in any way ... it becomes harassment."

I don't want to get too far off topic, but this is blatantly false, especially as far as law enforcement is concerned.

[geggam]

Disagree.

Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) the Fifth Amendment “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings

[pc86]

You have no such protection if you won't be incriminated by the answers (e.g. they are asking you about someone else). You can of course be involuntarily called as a witness in proceedings where you're not being prosecuted.

[roninb]

AFAIK, (and IANAL), you would have to be certain the questions did not incriminate you. In other words, "pc86, were you or were you not on your couch May the 5th at 8PM EST?" "I plead the fifth." "Your honor, this doesn't incriminate the witness." "pc86, you must answer the question because it is non-incriminating." And of course if it was incriminating, the appellate lawyers would win resoundingly.

Logically, it would follow that if you don't know what a question IS, you can 'plead the fifth' to it on the basis that it could be incriminating. But again, IANAL.

[the_ancient]

So you believe the only type of harassment is sexual?