
I can only say that those people are wrong. The word harass means to 
irritate or torment persistently; I'd hardly consider one time to fall
under the definition of persistent.  Additionally, there is no basis
to assume the behaviour is unwanted, unlike an illegal proposition.

I was speaking from a legalistic viewpoint.  What you say is true, but
the law, in order to make what little sense it manages to make, has to
make *some* assumptions.  Assuming that an illegal activity is unwanted
by the average citizen I think is reasonable.  Certainly, I would need
a preponderance of evidence on the side of the propositioner that there
was a reasonable belief that the proposition was welcome.

The number of people who participate in "victimless" crimes notwithstanding,
the fact reamins that under the law, the activity is illegal.  To presume
that the proposition *is* welcome simply because a large number of people
indulge in it is the type of sophistry only a lawyer could indulge in
with a straight face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)