Hacker News Reader

well, if you count emotional harm as harm, and anyone can be emotionally harmed by anything, then the rule becomes meaningless.

View on HN

And if you don't count emotional harm as harm, you'll let insistent stalking, threatening, and all kinds of moral abuses pass. So yeah, the definition is completely useless.

I don't think you need to treat emotional harm as harm when you can criminalize credible threats or harassment (repeated unwanted personal contact after being told to stop).

There is the tort of outrage or "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" which does treat emotional harm as harm that can be recovered against in a civil case, but it's controversial, hard to prove and limited in scope.

I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. What kind of harm do credible threats or harassment cause if not emotional harm?

Rational fear of a crime being committed? I'd struggle to call that emotional harm. I might not be upset about a threat, but still respond to it by changing my behavior or actions, and for various reasons society wants to discourage people from using the threat of initiated force in most situations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com