Politician Wants To Make Ghosting A Criminal Offense And Have Perpetrators 'Punished'

A Filipino politician wants to make ghosting an official crime, deeming it an ‘emotional offence’.

Look, we’ve all been there. Things are going real swell with your new person, and suddenly, communication ends abruptly. The only time you hear from them is when you accidentally Facetime call them six months later; I mean…I heard from a friend.

However, the good news is that it happens to everyone. It’s inevitable, like paying taxes or being fined for parking in a bus zone.

But alas! Member of the Nationalist People’s Coalition, Arnolfo Teves Jr wants to make the anti-social act a criminal offence, according to The Washington Post.

Alamy Stock Photo

The proposed bill, presented to the country’s House of Representatives last month, said that ghosting ‘can be likened to a form of emotional cruelty and should be punished as an emotional offence’ and should be considered an abusive act.

The act also said: “Ghosting is a form of spite that develops feelings of rejection and neglect. 

“Ghosting has adverse effects on the mental state of the one being ghosted and his or her emotional state is still adversely affected as he or she will be constantly thinking of the welfare or the unexplained reasons of the one who ghosted.”

Although nowhere in the bill states what type of punishment would ensue, it definitely raises some interesting qualms about dating in the modern world.

Similarly, earlier this month, a Michigan woman attempted to sue a man for USD$10,000 (AUD $14,495 or £8,327) for standing her up on a date.

The woman, QaShontae Short, launched a lawsuit against Richard Jordan in 67th District Court, claiming ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress’ after he failed to show to the date and ghosted her after, according to TMZ.

67th District Court

However, during the Zoom hearing, Judge Herman Marable Jr notified the woman that she had filed the claim in the wrong court, and she couldn’t prove that the man had committed ‘perjury’.

He continued to tell the woman that she incorrectly labelled her allegations in her report while telling Short her claim was a matter ‘outside the jurisdiction of district court'.

He said: “I don't see anything in the complaint that says he made a false statement under oath.”

To which Short said she would redirect the lawsuit to the Circuit court.

For now, the woman will just have to settle for a date….with another judge.