I stared at a woman sitting at the computer lab. She was sitting at desk across me. I stared with my eyes being squinted, she asked me if I was okay, I did not respond and continued to stare at her. She was starting to get scared, and I leaned closer towards her, and she got very scared with her eyes really wide and her body very shaky and moved away.
Later that day, I stared at many more women at the computer lab. The first two women seem to be ignoring me or leaving me as they found out that I was staring at them. But the third women reacted. First I stared with my eyes squinted. I then turned my seat around to face her. I got up and stared at her standing. And lastly, walked towards her seat and leaned my face towards her. She backed away as I leaned towards her. The second woman did not seem very scared by her body language, but she did took a photo of me with her cellphone to report to the campus police.
A few weeks later I received an email message urging me to call a number right now to meet the campus detective.
The detective has printed out some of the complaints by the victims. One woman said that she was worried because she thought I was about to faint, then later noticed weird behavior.
I had the feeling that they would search for my name on the Internet, and this is exactly what they did. The detective printed out some of my Facebook's posts from early 2013. I wrote that voyeurism and blackmail should be legalized and there should be no privacy rights. I also briefly mentioned that "stalking and harassment should also be legalized." I advocated the legalization of them because I was an anarcho-capitalist and there were anarcho-capitalist arguments for legalized harassment.
Someone asked "where do I draw the line". I responded "everything is permitted until physical force or the threat of physical force is initiated."
"Everything is permitted until physical force or the threat of physical force is initiated." This statement is problematic because it may be misinterpreted. For example, people could take what I wrote to mean: "I like to harass people is because it does not involve any physical force." "Infidelity should be pursued because it does not involve physical force."
In early 2013 I also wrote a post on Facebook containing:
Virtually any "unwanted" contact between two persons is considered "stalking." "Stalking" does not need to be sexual. For example, a heated conflict could be considered "stalking" if one party walks away and the other party continues to argue.
Emily Hilscher felt "stalked" which led to a restraining order against Cho. The restraining order against him is probably the reason Cho shot Hilscher in the dorm room. There was a similar case of a restraining leading to a shooting. In the 2012 Azana Spa shootings, the perpetrator Radcliffe Haughton had a restraining order against him. No wonder why both Cho and Haughton became mad. Restraining orders cause violence because they make people verbally defenseless; inciting them to desperately use physical force.
"Restraining orders" only fucking angers one of the parties. If you impose a "restraining order" against someone, you're basically telling him or her to "shut up." "Restraining orders" exacerbate conflicts which both parties had started. "Restraining orders" silence the other party from defending themselves verbally, only compelling them to resort to physical violence. DO YOU FUCKING KNOW HOW MANY MASS SHOOTINGS WERE PERPETRATED BY MEN WITH RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST THEM?
I removed that post a few months later before I did the social experiment.
I have recorded the audio of the whole 30-minute interview with the detective and if anyone is interested I could upload some parts of it.