i thought the argument of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" was of interest. some of us have been guilty of this when engaging in trolling, shock memeing, spamming, targeted/personal/misinformation, psychotic expressions, etc. raising a legal point can help curb these habits. i just have some written notes on this, the talk was by a linda demaine yesterday, i didn't get most of it. conveniently she iterated what is needed for each legal argument to have normal success, but i didn't get all of that down. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - when behavior stimulates significant emotional harm, those harmed must be compensated - most success when the behavior is clearly very unacceptable or abnormal - most success when the behavior repeats such as in stalking Fraud - perpetrator gave misinformation - complainant acted on this misinformation resulting in loss or harm - has been more successful when the court in question has an understanding of coercive persuasion Undue Influence - mostly used in wills and trusts, this is roughly unfair manipulation of another's choices - in a different talk it was mentioned this has started to find success in other cases in california Unjust Enrichment - behavior benefited the perpetrator - the complainant did not receive compensation for this benefit False Imprisonment - complainant had no reasonable means of leaving an area - complainant was aware they were confined or harmed while without means of leaving - usually this has been applied to areas as big as a room or so, people are trying to build use of this for much larger regions Human Trafficking - force, fraud, or coercion via threat of serious harm - used to stimulate sex or forced labor, including forced volunteering RICO racketeer influenced something or other - missed this one, maybe i'm scared of organized crime