Harassment

www.ZeroAttempts.org

166.065¹ Harassment
Lady Gaga's powerful new video shows the reality of campus sexual assault
Standing Your Ground Laws

Lady Gaga's powerful new video shows the reality of campus sexual assault.

But Gaga's new video isn't the flashy, avant-garde performance art she's usually known for. The video for her latest single, "Till It Happens to You" is the theme song for the documentary "The Hunting Ground," which focuses on the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses and the school administrators who fail to help survivors and/or try to cover it up. (Full disclosure: I was interviewed for the documentary and make a few brief appearances in it.)

1 in 5 women — and 5% of men — are sexually assaulted during their college careers. Lady Gaga's new video aims to change that.

"Till It Happens to You" is a powerful message for survivors and non-survivors alike.

In the video, Gaga captures how sexual assault can happen in different ways and that what we think of when we think of sexual assault or rape doesn't quite reflect reality.

The media often portrays sexual assault or rape as something committed by an obviously evil-looking villain who drugs his victims. But in reality, 82% of sexual assaults and 47% of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows and trusts.

And it's a big deal that a major pop star is using her platform to call attention to the fact that sexual assaults don't just happen in darkly-lit back alleys late at night or at alcohol fueled parties.

The video shows that it doesn't matter how assault happens. All survivors need the same thing: support.

All of the survivors in the video struggle with the aftermath of their assaults. To show the impact of the emotional trauma of assault, their thoughts and feelings are written in marker on different body parts.

But when they end up finding comfort in their friends, they transform. They go from shame and self-loathing, to hope and self-love.

Of course, Gaga is right, support is crucial — but it's important to note that everyone handles trauma differently. Just because your friend might not seem to be crying or scared, they still might just need a friend to come and hang out to provide a judgement-free space.

When a friend goes through a traumatic experience, it can be hard to understand what they're feeling. But what you can do is listen.

Showing support for a friend can mean everything from simply telling them "I'm here for you" to actually driving them to the therapist's office (at their request).

The song's chorus talks about how the trauma of rape or sexual assault is something that cannot be truly understood unless you go through it yourself:

Till It happens to you, you don't know how it feels, how it feels
Till it happens to you, you won't know, it won't be real
No, it won't be real, won't know how it feels

But even if you haven't personally experienced it, you can still be there for your friend by believing them and their story. It might seem small, but even something as simple as saying "I believe you" can make a huge difference.

In the video, it's the love and support from their friends that gives the survivors the strength to speak up.

It is common for victims to stay silent. In fact, 95.2% of campus rape victims never report. But the tide is beginning to change, thanks to survivors (like Gaga herself) who are speaking up.

Many survivors have created groups like Carry That Weight and Know Your IX to take action urging schools and the government to stand up and help create safer campuses.

They're sharing their stories. And now it's time for college campuses and the government to listen to what they're saying.

The best way to combat sexual assault is to believe survivors. To stand beside them when they share their stories. To make sure their voices are heard.

Sexual assault isn't just a women's issue. Or a survivor's issue. It's an issue for all of us. And we have to fight it together.

Source: www.upworthy.com/lady-gagas-powerful-new-video-shows-the-reality-of-campus-sexual-assault?c=reccon3

166.065¹ Harassment

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

(c) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that persons family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

(2)(a) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the persons control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(b) Harassment that is committed under the circumstances described in subsection (1)(c) of this section is committed in either the county in which the communication originated or the county in which the communication was received.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates:

(a) Subsection (1)(a)(A) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person; or

(b) Subsection (1)(c) of this section and:

(A) The person has a previous conviction under subsection (1)(c) of this section and the victim of the current offense was the victim or a member of the family of the victim of the previous offense;

(B) At the time the offense was committed, the victim was protected by a stalking protective order, a restraining order as defined in ORS 24.190 (Foreign restraining orders) or any other court order prohibiting the person from contacting the victim;

(C) At the time the offense was committed, the person reasonably believed the victim to be under 18 years of age and more than three years younger than the person; or

(D)(i) The person conveyed a threat to kill the other person or any member of the family of the other person;

(ii) The person expressed the intent to carry out the threat; and

(iii) A reasonable person would believe that the threat was likely to be followed by action.

(5) As used in this section, electronic threat means a threat conveyed by electronic mail, the Internet, a telephone text message or any other transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, cellular system, electromagnetic system or other similar means. [1971 c.743 §223; 1981 c.468 §1; 1985 c.498 §1; 1987 c.806 §3; 1995 c.802 §1; 2001 c.870 §2; 2009 c.783 §1]

Source: www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.065
See also: MEMORANDUM NO. 002-2009-10 – Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying policy and procedures

Notes of Decisions

Course of conduct is a pattern of conduct composed of same or similar acts repeated over a period of time, however short, which estab­ishes a continuity of purpose in the mind of the actor. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Offensive physical contact includes striking, slapping, shoving, kicking, grabbing and similar acts that are an interference with the contactee, regardless of whether they produce any pain or discomfort. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Requirement that person act with specific intent to harass, annoy or alarm is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Requirement that person subject another person to offensive physical contact is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Sallinger, 11 Or App 592, 504 P2d 1283 (1972)

Prohibition against conduct constituting harassment by telephone, mail or other form of written communica­tion is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Zeit, 22 Or App 480, 539 P2d 1130 (1975)

Prohibition against conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another person is unconstitutionally vague. State v. Sanderson, 33 Or App 173, 575 P2d 1025 (1978)

Notwithstanding that initial stop of defendant was unlawful under ORS 131.615 (Stopping of persons), such illegality did not render inadmissible defendants subsequent behavior, for which he was charged under this section. State v. Gaffney, 36 Or App 105, 583 P2d 582 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Spitting on another can be offensive physical contact within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Keller, 40 Or App 143, 594 P2d 1250 (1979)

Prohibition against communications that are likely to cause annoyance or alarm is unconstitutionally vague. State v. Blair, 287 Or 519, 601 P2d 766 (1979)

Publicly insulting another by abusive or obscene words or gestures in manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response with intent to harass, annoy or alarm, violates section 8, Article I, Oregon Constitution, because it is directed to speech and is not wholly confined within some historical exception to that constitutional section. State v. Harrington, 67 Or App 608, 680 P2d 666 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Proscription against offensive physical contact is directed toward conduct not speech and does not violate section 8, Article I, Oregon Constitution. State v. Beebe, 67 Or App 738, 680 P2d 11 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Harassment by causing telephone to ring with no communicative purpose, is clear and unambiguous. State v. Lowery, 71 Or App 833, 693 P2d 1343 (1984)

Prohibition against telephonic or written threats, where focus is on effect not speech and effect must be objectively as well as subjectively genuine, is neither constitutionally overbroad nor vague. State v. Moyle, 299 Or 691, 705 P2d 740 (1985)

Telephonic or written threat must be genuine and pose objective risk of breach of peace and failure by defendant to act on threat may suggest it was not genuine, but failure does not compel such conclusion. State v. Mapula, 80 Or App 146, 720 P2d 1336 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Harassment did not occur by phoning of bomb threat when recipient of threat was not actually placed in fear. State v. Wilson, 81 Or App 48, 724 P2d 840 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where harassment is not lesser included offense under charge of assault in fourth de­gree, defendants conviction for harass­ment is reversed. State v. Warren, 101 Or App 446, 790 P2d 47 (1990)

Harassment by touching sexual or intimate parts of anoth­er is not lesser included offense of sexual abuse in first degree (ORS 163.427 (Sexual abuse in the first degree)). State v. Barnes, 209 Or App 332, 147 P3d 936 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Prohibition of this section is facially overbroad so as to violate constitutional right of free speech. State v. Johnson, 345 Or 190, 191 P3d 665 (2008)

Chapter 166

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972); 69 OLR 169 (1990)

Source: www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.065