This reminded me of the time ~10 years ago I was at an event featuring Richard Stallman, and he started by say that no one was allowed to post photos of him on FB. This was to a room of hundreds of people, mostly hackers. I thought, "damn, if there's an uphill battle somewhere, this guy will find it!"
In this example RMS made a request to the audience. A boundary would be something like "if you post photos of me to Facebook, you won't be invited to my conferences" or "if you do X, I won't interact with you". Might be difficult to enforce, but that's on the person making the boundary.
That's the defining feature of a boundary: you don't actually tell people what to do. You just tell them what you'll do. "Don't talk to me like that" is an ask, "Talk to me like that again and I'll leave" is a boundary.
On the flip side: if I were to attend an event featuring Richard Stallman, I would rather it have a no-photos policy. I am interested in many of his ideas, but I have no desire to be associated with his ideas in their entirety or any public figure. Unfortunately, too many people believe that A implies B.
I also hate drama, and would much rather lead a quiet life as a person no one likes than an interesting life who some people dislike.
True. Maybe dislike was a poor choice of words on my part, but I can't think of anything more suitable. The main thing I want to avoid is drama. If someone dislikes me and that dislike doesn't go any further than letting me know, that's fine. It's their choice. When their actions start affecting my life, that's not fine.
How would this work in practice if it was litigated? Wouldn't you need proof that this was expressly communicated to the specific individual that violated and that they did so knowingly? Seems like it probably isn't enforceable...
