Can Stack Exchange&#39;s down-voting system be considered online bullying? From what I understand, bullying happens when someone is harmed through an online system that puts them in contact with other users, sometimes masking their identities. From Wikipedia: Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others. use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person use of Internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person. From &quot;Cyber Bullying Law &amp; Legal Definition&quot;: Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. As such, could the &quot;downvote&quot; button, which is a major &quot;feature&quot; of the SE website, be considered a bullying tool? It allows people to collectively, but in a hidden manner, criticise the work and input of a single user (instead of discussing with them to tell them they disagree). This can in turn create a situations in which someone can feel like a group of people is against them, or voted down their content in order to harm them, or do not want to communicate their reasons to them (feeling of domination and exclusion can be reinforced if the person downvoted, as is often the case for a new user without &quot;privileges&quot;). The intent behind each downvote is not clear, and some users could downvote in order to harm if they wanted, this is a possibility and privilege given to them. Or a user who believes they have been harmed by a down vote could claim the downvotes were made out of hatred since downvotes can be done without justification. To summarise, could a bullying case involving a new user who got his question downvoted stand in court? NOTE: I couldn't find &quot;cyber-bullying&quot; and &quot;online-crime&quot; or any related tags in there but feel free to add them if needed.
No. I can't give a more detailed answer without reference to a specific statute. But just about every state anti-bullying statute in the U.S. restricts the definition to...well, bullying. There is a good summary of state bullying and cyberbullying statutes here. The laws are varied, but they invariable contain words like "harassment", "abuse", "threatening," "fear," and "hostile environment." Would it be possible to "cyberbully" someone on Stack Exchange under some of these statutes? Sure. You could do it in comments; in answers; even in questions. "Question: Is Bill in my algebra class a dork, or a tool?" Comment: "This is a terrible question, and I'm going to burn your house down. Downvoting." You could probably fit something like that under some of the broader statutes--although they still for the most part haven't been tested for First Amendment issues. But I don't know of any statute broad enough to include downvoting a question or answer, on a site people post on knowing that the whole purpose of posting is to allow their posts to be upvoted and downvoted. If there was such a statute--and again, I don't know of any--it would almost certainly be unconstitutional. There is no law against hurting people's feelings, at least in the United States, and a law that allows people to seek legal redress for someone saying "I disagree with you" is pretty much the poster child for a First Amendment violation.
The Criminal Code says: (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly Touching is applying force, even if it is slight. The law also says (same section) that apparent consent evidenced by submission isn't actually consent: (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. This pretty much means that consent is always required. If you are wrong about there having been consent and you end up being charged, you can explain why you thought there was consent, and the judge may find the story sufficiently plausible that you can use that as a defence, because: 4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief. Here is a model jury instruction pertaining to consent Third – Did (NOC) consent to the force that (NOA) applied? To decide whether (NOC) consented to the physical contact, you must consider (NOC)’s state of mind. Consider all the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding (NOA)’s physical contact with (NOC), to decide whether (NOC) consented to it. Take into account any words or gestures, whether by (NOA) or (NOC), and any other indication of (NOC)’s state of mind at the time. Just because (NOC) submitted or did not resist does not mean that (NOC) consented to what (NOA) did. Consent requires (NOC)’s voluntary agreement, without the influence of force, threats, fear, fraud or abuse of authority, to let the physical contact occur. The instruction pertaining to the "honest but mistaken belief in consent" defence goes like this: (NOA)’s position is that s/he was unaware that (NOC) did not consent. In fact, it is his/her position that s/he honestly believed that (NOC) consented to the physical contact in question. A belief is a state of mind, in this case, (NOA)’s state of mind. To determine whether (NOA) honestly believed that (NOC) consented to the physical contact in question, you should consider all the circumstances surrounding that activity. Take into account any words or gestures, whether by (NOA) or (NOC), and any other indication of (NOA)’s state of mind at the time. (NOA)’s belief that (NOC) consented to the physical contact must be an honest belief, but it does not have to be reasonable. However, you must consider whether there were reasonable grounds for (NOA)’s belief; the presence or absence of reasonable grounds may help you decide whether (NOA)’s belief was honest. Look at all the circumstances in deciding this issue. Do not focus on only one and ignore the rest. You must consider all the evidence, including anything said or done in the circumstances. Use common sense. (NOA) does not have to prove that s/he honestly believed that (NOC) consented to the physical contact. Rather, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) had no such belief. In other words, if the story is believable, the jury might believe it. Asking for each and every kind of contact can be annoying and a little silly, but if you might be at risk, better silly than sorry.
Art. 15(4) GDPR says: (4) The right to obtain a copy referred to in paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others. If I was the controller in this situation, and I believed that this would endanger the students that have criticised the professor, I would base my argument for not complying on this. In addition, Art. 85 GDPR requires member states to: [...] reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information [...] So you may be able to argue that the students posting messages are engaging in "processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression", depending on the laws of the particular member state. (edit: this could be difficult since you mention it is a private database). The second case seems just like the first in terms of GDPR, but may constitute defamation. Defamation (or libel) laws differ wildly in each country; he Wikipedia article on Defamation explains the situation in each member state in more detail. In the third case: if the professor submits a request based on the rights of a data subject other than himself, they don't need to comply. These requests need to come from the data subjects themselves, not just a random person assuming authority. (although I suppose it's possible for them to give power of attorney to the department head if they wanted to) Personal data and the rights that GDPR provides to data subjects always relate to a natural person, not an institution or a company.
While @jqning is absolutely correct in stating that truth is always an "absolute defense" to a claim of defamation, keep in mind that truth can be a subjective thing. What is one person's version of the truth, may not be another's, even with regard to the same exact experience. Also, while "statements of opinion are not defamation" is typically regarded as true, it has very broad exceptions and is not something that can be relied on in isolation. Defamation is generally defined as a false, published statement that is injurious to the plaintiff's reputation. An online posting, even on an obscure website, will likely be seen by a few people, thus satisfying the publication requirement. A plaintiff cannot succeed in his or her online defamation claim if the defendant's defamatory statement is true. So, for example, if a customer posts a review of your restaurant on Trip Advisor claiming that there were roaches crawling around, you may sue them for defamation. You would then have to prove that there was no roach infestation, and thus, the defendant's statement was false. However, what if there was only one? What if he has a witness who saw it? His truth may be different from yours, and it is up to the trier of fact to decide. Also, getting sued, whether or not you prevail, is at minimum a pain and can be a very expensive ordeal. Opinions are exempt? OK: Following that line of reasoning, restaurant owner shows he's had monthly inspections and prophylactic measures to ensure against pests and the exterminator testifies. The defendant, fearing he's in trouble now, claims that his assertion of roach infestation was just his opinion based on his experience. Opinions are privileged under the law of defamation, right? Not always! Importantly, an opinion may be viewed, generally, as a statement of fact (employing the "reasonable person" standard) if it is something that is either provable or disprovable. What this means is that if the reasonable person would construe your statement to be factual, and not mere opinion, it will be deemed as such and if untrue then you're liable for defamation. The courts may interpret, "I think that [restaurant] has a roach infestation problem," as a statement of fact. This has occurred in numerous cases where people think they can say what they want as long as they couch it as an opinion, with words like "I think..." or "In my opinion...". But when someone says something that factual in opinion form, that is not protected. So, if Jane says, "In my opinion Joe Schmoe is a pedophile..." without absolute proof that Joe is, in fact, a pedophile, then this is libelous (defamation if published or spoken to another). This is because the statement in and of itself is one of "verifiable fact couched in opinion" and it is so damaging to Joe's reputation that if it's not true it is libel per se (defamatory if published &ndash; meaning shared). A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. While the law varies some, and sometimes substantially, from state to state, here are some often used examples arising from California courts. Libelous (when false): Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959) Calling an attorney a "crook" Describing a woman as a call girl Accusing a minister of unethical conduct Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son Not-libelous: Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context) Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank" Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch" Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer" Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact. Modified photos that can be shown to scandalize persons or businesses are clearly defamation, and are quite popular on social media. So, for example, if you threw the flyers (I assume you didn't but as an example) all over, and then photographed and published your opinion about the business littering neighborhoods, this would be libelous. The less obvious and absurd the modification, the more likely it is that a court will find it defamatory. So, a picture of a woman with a man's naked torso photoshopped on will not be defamatory, a version photoshopped showing what is to be purported to be her naked body, is. In your case, you face two issues that you should ask yourself: Is your opinion really verifiable (or non-verifiable) facts couched in words that try to make it opinion, or is it truly just your opinion. If fact, is it absolutely true? If the answer is yes, it's fact and yes, it's absolutely true, you're OK. Keep in mind though what I mentioned about truths differing: What if the business didn't know they were put there, or, what if they were placed on cars in a public place and blew in the wind? That could be a problem. While you are most likely fine, you may want to just say, X business's fliers are all over the place, littering the neighborhood and (assuming you called and asked them to pick them up, or wrote them) they refuse to pick up the litter. It sounds like the statements you made are fine, because you don't say that the business littered, or that they put them there; you say they are "plastered" all over, but you don't accuse them openly. That isn't to say it wouldn't be found to suggest fact that they would have to show isn't true (or that they didn't get permission from the property owner). My point is only that, in general, be careful. If he felt that you misrepresented what he did by way of distributing fliers, or if he thought you doctored the photo or set it up, he could sue you if he felt it damaged his business's reputation.
In general, a ToS document for a web site or online service is simply a contract or agreement. Normally violations of such an agreement are possible grounds for a civil suit, but are not crimes. Moreover, some terms that some TOS documents claim are not legally enforceable. For example some insist that a user waive a right that the law says cannot be waived. The kind of terms mentioned ion the question are probably enforceable in most jurisdictions. If a person intentionally supplies false information to a site operator or service provider, with the intention of gaining some financial benefit that would not be available without the false statements, under circumstances where it would be reasonable for the site operator to rely on the statements, that would be fraud in many jurisdictions. Fraud is often a matter for a civil suit, but in some cases it can be a crime also. Those cases vary in different jurisdictions, and the question does not specify any particular jurisdiction. Criminal fraud is the only case where I can think of where a ToS violation would be a crime. Some TOS documents prohibit things which are already crimes. For example a communication site might include in its ToS that users are not to use it to assist in committing a crime, or to unlawfully harass someone. If a user violated those provisions, they would also be committing a crime, but only because those actions would be crimes even if the TOS had never mentioned them. It is a crime to plan a murder via a chat site, whether the TOS says so or not. But that is because it is a crime to plan a murder in general, with nor without the chat site. There are some specifically online crimes. For example, posting so-called &quot;revenge porn&quot; is a crime in many jurisdictions. But that is a crime because of a law against it, not because of a TOS that prohibits it. In all usual cases, a ToS violation will be dealt with via a civil suit, or by limiting or canceling the user's access, if it is dealt with at all. CFAA In the united-states the Computer fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), specifically 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2), makes it a crime for anyone who ... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access ... The recent case of Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) dealt with the &quot;exceeds authorized access&quot; language. (See the Wikipedia article) In that case, Van Buren, a police officer, accessed official databases to determine id the holder of a given license plate was in fact an undercover police officer. Van Buren thought that this information was being provided to a criminal, and was paid $6,000 for it. Van Buren knew that the access policy prohibited access for &quot;personal use&quot; or any &quot;non-official purpose&quot;. He was charged with a felony violation of the CFAA on the ground that he accessed information with an &quot;improper purpose&quot;, although he would have been authorized to access that same information with a proper purpose. After a long discussion of the meanign of the words &quot;so&quot; and &quot;entitled&quot; in the stsatute, the court opnion says: If the “exceeds authorized access” clause criminalizes every violation of a computer-use policy, then millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals. Take the workplace. Employers commonly state that computers and electronic devices can be used only for business purposes. So on the Government’s reading of the statute, an employee who sends a personal e-mail or reads the news using her work computer has violated the CFAA. Or consider the Internet. Many websites, services, and databases—which provide “information” from “protected computer[s],” §1030(a)(2)(C)—authorize a user’s access only upon his agreement to follow specified terms of service. If the “exceeds authorized access” clause encompasses violations of circumstance-based access restrictions on employers’ computers, it is difficult to see why it would not also encompass violations of such restrictions on website providers’ computers. And indeed, numerous amici explain why the Government’s reading of subsection (a)(2) would do just that—criminalize everything from embellishing an online-dating profile to using a pseudonym on Facebook. ... ... For example, one police department might prohibit using a confidential database for a non-law-enforcement purpose (an access restriction), while another might prohibit using information from the database for a non-law-enforcement purpose (a use restriction). Conduct like Van Buren’s can be characterized either way, and an employer might not see much difference between the two. On the Government’s reading, however, the conduct would violate the CFAA only if the employer phrased the policy as an access restriction. An interpretation that stakes so much on a fine distinction controlled by the drafting practices of private parties is hard to sell as the most plausible. In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him. This case clearly says that a person who has authorization to access a computer, but does so for a purpose prohibited by system policy, perhaps as expressed n a TOS contract, is not subject to criminal prosecution under the CFAA. It does not directly deal with the case where, as a condition of access, a person must furnish truthful ID information, or comply with some other condition, and whether violating such a condition would constitute a crime under the CFAA. But it casts significant doubt on any interpretation of the CFAA which would treat that as a crime
We can start by looking at the text of the law. US federal law 18 USC § 2252A(a)(3)(B) says: Any person who... knowingly... advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains— (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct... shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). I'm not sure how much posting the name without the link would protect you, given that you posted it with the explicit intent that someone would go and look at it. On the other hand, your intent was not to "advertise" or "promote" it, and you didn't actually "distribute" the material.
Note: this can vary by jurisdiction. Defamation in General Defamation can be libel, which is written, or slander, which is spoken. In order to prove you are the victim of defamation, you must show that the statement that allegedly defamed you was: published false injurious, and unprivileged Published means that some third party (other than you and the individual who allegedly defamed you) saw or heard the statement that allegedly defamed you. This can be achieved through media as varied as a newspaper, a picket sign, or even in conversation. The truth is not subject to suit for defamation. It doesn’t matter how mean something is, if it is true, you can’t sue. Thus, the statement made must have been objectively false (therefore protecting opinions). You must show how your reputation was hurt by the statement. Being ostracized in your community, losing work, being harassed by reporters, are examples of ways to show the statement was injurious to you. Finally, there are certain situations where the importance of free speech is even more important than usual to make a speaker’s statement be considered as “privileged.” For example, it is so important for a witness in a trial to be frank and open in their testimony that it is recognized they should not feel constrained by worrying about whether they will get sued for defamation. Thus, a witness who falsely testified to something in court or a deposition is not subject to defamation suits. Obviously, prosecution for perjury is possible if they testify to something they know is false. The Public Figure You are talking about the Family Guy and other TV shows which make fun of politicians and other well-known people from Kelsey Grammar to Whoopi Goldberg. Because the value we put on the ability to criticize our government and those we elect to it, as well as all publicly influential people in general, the people Family Guy, etc., make fun of, public figures, have a higher bar to reach when it comes to proving defamation. A public figure is someone who has gained prominence in the community as a result of his or her name or exploits, whether willingly or unwillingly. Easy examples of this can include politicians, CEOs, NFL quarterbacks, or movie stars. However, certainly, depending on jurisdiction and context, certainly regional or local level individuals may at times be considered public figures. To prevail in a case alleging defamation, a public figure has to prove the above-mentioned four elements and, additionally, must show that the person who made the statement was acting with “actual malice.” This rule derives from the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan where SCOTUS described the reasoning as deriving from a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. Thus, a private person claiming defamation has more protection as a victim than a public figure does as a victim. When people put themselves out there for any reason, they are causing themselves to become a matter of public interest and subject to scrutiny. A private person should not have to walk around with the same burden on his mind because he has not likewise put himself out there. That said, the private person may be “pushed” into the public sphere without his consent due to other occurrences that drew the public’s attention to him. The Limited Purpose Public Figure Finally, a person may be a limited purpose public figure where he has purposely and noticeably put himself out there in some public controversy with the purpose of influencing the controversy’s outcome. An example is a church pastor who decries abortion because “he thrust himself to the forefront of a particular controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issue.” Another is a local expert on suicide because that person “distinguished herself in this particular field.” Limited purpose public figures must also show “actual malice” to prevail in a defamation suit. Parody/Satire These forms of communication, despite containing statements that may be intentionally injurious and/or offenses, are protected under the notion of political commentary. Satire and parody are protected, “provided a reasonable reader would not mistake the statements as describing actual facts.” So, someone who is the subject of parody of satire cannot sue “unless the irreverent comments contain a provably false fact.” In addition, they must also prove the “actual malice” element and the four original elements. Various factors go into deciding whether something is parody or satire and it is a reasonableness test where none of those factors are subject to an absolute requirement or subject to a certain level. For context, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of actions reporters can take when publishing parody and satire, noting again that no single item below must be included and the presence of one of them does not provide an absolute defense. Is the content at issue separated or labeled to indicate it is not straight news? Does the irreverent tone exist throughout the piece? Does the publication have a history of producing satire or parody? For example, the difference between The Onion and cnn.com. Are there illogical or over-the-top situations or actions in the piece? Are there fictitious names that are similar to real ones? Such as, “Don Drumpft” and “Plaidimir Vutin” (which I’ve actually seen somewhere once!). If this is based on a specific event, how soon after or long after was the content published? If the event is still in the public memory vs. if it has long been forgotten. Is there a disclaimer indicating it satire or parody? Note that a disclaimer must be reasonably visible and accessible to the average reader. Content seen on shows like the Family Guy are a) usually against public figures and b) usually sufficiently done in a context that conveys the fact that it is satire or parody. Therefore, suits against the show’s creators simply do not (or are very rare and even more rarely successful) do not materialize.
united-states Generally, the relief sought in a case like this is a &quot;restraining order&quot; or a &quot;protective order&quot;. One might also pursue a criminal prosecution for stalking in the appropriate circumstances. Typically, if one can meet the high standard for issuance of such an order, a court issues a temporary order ex parte (i.e. based only upon what you have said and evidence you have provided) and then sets the matter for a hearing at which the person against whom the order is sought can defend themselves in court in a fairly short time period. If the judge finds that the high threshold to issue to order is met after considering the evidence at an adversarial evidentiary hearing, then the order becomes permanent or in force for a long period of time. The circumstances that can justify the issuance of such an order vary from state to state but usually must involve either a clear risk of serious physical harm or extreme harassment short of physical harm. Generally a court's restraining order or protective order cannot be waived by the protected person without another court order vacating it. Unlike most court orders, protection orders can usually be enforced directly by law enforcement rather than solely in an after the fact contempt of court proceeding in the court that issued the order originally. This said, even though the law may say that enforcing a protection order is mandatory, in practice, law enforcement discretion means that it is not. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). Also, as a matter of practical reality, law enforcement is often not able to stop someone who is violating a restraining order before it is too later, or because law enforcement is unable to confirm that a cyber stalker really is the person against whom a protection order has been issued. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case from Colorado regarding what kind of evidence that someone's communications amount to a &quot;true threat&quot; that is sufficient to justify legal consequences for this kind of contact. Simply continuing to contact you after you ask them to not contact you is rarely sufficient. But if someone who repeatedly contacts you in a way that you make clear is unwanted this is one factor among many used to consider if the conduct justifies issuance of an order or a criminal prosecution of some kind such as a stalking prosecution. Repeatedly contacting someone against their wishes can also get someone banned from an online platform outside the court process. Many online platforms have developed filters, blocking, and privacy controls in an attempt to make it harder to engage in this kind of conduct. The cycle of behavior of a victim in this case is a common one and it can make it very frustrating for lawyers, law enforcement, and other supportive people to help someone in this situation. I've certainly seen it play out first hand. In Colorado, the primary statutes are found at Colorado Revised Statutes, Sections 13-14-100.2 to 13-14.5-111. Colorado also imposes protection orders on a temporary basis during the divorce proceedings, many kinds of criminal cases, and certain other family law cases. Under the most common kind of case under these statutes, an order may be issued to: (I) To prevent assaults and threatened bodily harm; (II) To prevent domestic abuse; (III) To prevent emotional abuse of the elderly or of an at-risk adult; (IV) To prevent sexual assault or abuse; and (V) To prevent stalking. Some select definitions used include: “Abuse of the elderly or of an at-risk adult” means mistreatment of a person who is sixty years of age or older or who is an at-risk adult as defined in section 26-3.1-101(1.5), including but not limited to repeated acts that: (a) Constitute verbal threats or assaults; (b) Constitute verbal harassment; (c) Result in the inappropriate use or the threat of inappropriate use of medications; (d) Result in the inappropriate use of physical or chemical restraints; (e) Result in the misuse of power or authority granted to a person through a power of attorney or by a court in a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding that results in unreasonable confinement or restriction of liberty; or (f) Constitute threats or acts of violence against, or the taking, transferring, concealing, harming, or disposing of, an animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the elderly or at-risk adult, which threats or acts are intended to coerce, control, punish, intimidate, or exact revenge upon the elderly or at-risk adult. “Domestic abuse” means any act, attempted act, or threatened act of violence, stalking, harassment, or coercion that is committed by any person against another person to whom the actor is currently or was formerly related, or with whom the actor is living or has lived in the same domicile, or with whom the actor is involved or has been involved in an intimate relationship. A sexual relationship may be an indicator of an intimate relationship but is never a necessary condition for finding an intimate relationship. For purposes of this subsection (2), “coercion” includes compelling a person by force, threat of force, or intimidation to engage in conduct from which the person has the right or privilege to abstain, or to abstain from conduct in which the person has a right or privilege to engage. “Domestic abuse” may also include any act, attempted act, or threatened act of violence against: (a) The minor children of either of the parties; or (b) An animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either of the parties or by a minor child of either of the parties, which threat, act, or attempted act is intended to coerce, control, punish, intimidate, or exact revenge upon either of the parties or a minor child of either of the parties. “Sexual assault or abuse” means any act, attempted act, or threatened act of unlawful sexual behavior, as described in section 16-11.7-102(3), C.R.S., by any person against another person regardless of the relationship between the actor and the petitioner. “Stalking” means any act, attempted act, or threatened act of stalking as described in section 18-3-602, C.R.S. The referenced section defines stalking as follows: A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly: (a) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or (b) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or (c) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person's immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this paragraph (c), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress. (2) For the purposes of this part 6: (a) Conduct &quot;in connection with&quot; a credible threat means acts that further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat. (b) &quot;Credible threat&quot; means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person's safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. The threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear. (c) &quot;Immediate family&quot; includes the person's spouse and the person's parent, grandparent, sibling, or child. (d) &quot;Repeated&quot; or &quot;repeatedly&quot; means on more than one occasion.