First off, let's look at the definition of sexual harassment:strangeotron said:
From the EEOC:
"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."
From the UN:
"such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable ground to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, including recruitment or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment."
Now, since this dick had zero authority, that automatically rules out types 1 and 2. So let's look at the definition of "hostile environment" sexual harassment. Of course, this had nothing to do with employment or other necessities, but let's pretend for the moment that the same legal standards applied to recreation as to employment. In order to qualify as harassment, rather than just douche behavior, all five of the following conditions must be met:
1. He or she suffered intentional, unwanted discrimination because of his or her sex.
2. The harassment was severe or pervasive.
3. The harassment negatively affected the terms, conditions or privileges of his or her work environment.
4. The harassment would detrimentally effect a reasonable person of the same sex.
5. Management knew about the harassment, or should have known, and did nothing to stop it.
I'll hand you 1 and 2, but let's take a closer look at the rest:
3. The jackass in question had ZERO control over the "terms, conditions or priveleges" of her LIVE account. Now, had he been an admin threatening to ban her if she didn't post tits, then this condition would be met. As is, he's just an annoyance.
4. Here's a fun experiment for all the guys out there with LIVE IDs: log onto a game, unmute everyone, and see how long it takes for someone to call you a fag. I'll wait.
Back already? Damn, that was fast. Now, show of hands, how many of you will seriously consider never getting on LIVE again? Anyone? Okay, I guess it wasn't all that detrimental.
5. Not really applicable, as I'm not sure who "management" would be in this analogy.
TL;DR:
Harassment is the abuse of authority. No authority, no harassment.
Next, "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". That would be speech that has a high probability of resulting in actual physical harm. Trash talk over LIVE just doesn't cut it. Making a false police report resulting in a squad of armed men bursting into someone's house, by contrast, DOES.
