Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Skullsessions]

I knew this was coming when they took the strike-out out of tee-ball.

Holy crap.  Now we're going to persue "anti-bullying" LAWS?

How?  Are we gonna make it ILLEGAL "say mean things" to one another?  What's the punishment if a kid makes another kid cry?

And people wonder why there's an upswell of Americans who think that common sense has been flushed (swirlied, perhaps) down the toilet.

What next?  Will the movie studios, directors, writers, actors, and crew of the Revenge of the Nerds movies have to pay restitution on all the money they made?

THESE are the things our leaders are concerned with these days?

The next Rep/Senator I see gets a wedgie.  Period.

[bblackwood]

Sadly, it's become apparent that some believe the First Amendment only protects politically correct speech.

[Jay Kadis]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 08:55

Sadly, it's become apparent that some believe the First Amendment only protects politically correct speech.

So is harassment considered free speech?

Cases of bullying in the news recently have resulted in suicides.  It's nothing new: we had an American friend living in England in the 1960s who had her dress set afire by bullying schoolgirls.  Let's not trivialize the problem - it is not as simple an issue as you portray.

[bblackwood]

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 11:20

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 08:55 Sadly, it's become apparent that some believe the First Amendment only protects politically correct speech. So is harassment considered free speech?

As long as it's only verbal, yes.

Quote:

Cases of bullying in the news recently have resulted in suicides.  It's nothing new: we had an American friend living in England in the 1960s who had her dress set afire by bullying schoolgirls.  Let's not trivialize the problem - it is not as simple an issue as you portray.

I'm not trivializing anything, but the First Amendment is as simple as I portray.

[Jay Kadis]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 09:34

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 11:20 bblackwood wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 08:55 Sadly, it's become apparent that some believe the First Amendment only protects politically correct speech. So is harassment considered free speech? As long as it's only verbal, yes. Quote: Cases of bullying in the news recently have resulted in suicides.  It's nothing new: we had an American friend living in England in the 1960s who had her dress set afire by bullying schoolgirls.  Let's not trivialize the problem - it is not as simple an issue as you portray. I'm not trivializing anything, but the First Amendment is as simple as I portray.

This was more aimed at the OP, but just as you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, there ARE limits to speech.

[YZ]

I consider that just a natural progression of things, such as laws against sexual harassment.

While I personally see nothing wrong with a guy trying to woo a co-worker there are cases where things go way beyond any limit of acceptability.

I believe that it would be good for all kids to learn early that they have the right to not like someone, but that it does not entitle them to demean, insult or act in uncivilized or violent manner towards the subject of their dislike.

It all comes down to the following question, IMO:

"In your family, do you allow one of your kids to bully a sibling?"

[bblackwood]

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 11:45

This was more aimed at the OP, but just as you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, there ARE limits to speech.

Fair enough, I responded as you quoted me.

And while I agree there are limits in place, this sort of law is ripe for abuse. Restricting free speech is a very dangerous thing to do, especially when the potential dangers are far less than the oft used example of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater'.

YZ wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 12:04

It all comes down to the following question, IMO: "In your family, do you allow one of your kids to bully a sibling?"

There are TONS of things I won't allow my kids to do, but that doesn't mean there should be a law against those behaviors. We can't legislate people's behavior into a utopian society, far too many examples around to ignore that.

[Skullsessions]

I'm certainly not a supporter of "bullying".

I was bullied as a kid, as know I bullied others once in a while.

But, setting a dress on fire with someone in it is aggravated battery...attempted murder, among other things.  It's not "bullying".

So...how do "we" intend to enforce laws against "bullying"?

How many times do I get to call you "four-eyes" before I get put into jail?  Once?  Twice?

Who's going to keep track?

Will it go on my permanent record?

What if I look at you like you're an idiot?
Clear my throat when you make a silly argument?
Roll my eyes when I disagree?

THOSE are aggressive expressions, aren't they?

[Jay Kadis]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 10:16

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 11:45 This was more aimed at the OP, but just as you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, there ARE limits to speech. Fair enough, I responded as you quoted me. And while I agree there are limits in place, this sort of law is ripe for abuse. Restricting free speech is a very dangerous thing to do, especially when the potential dangers are far less than the oft used example of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater'.

I agree there are problems with such laws - they must be carefully considered and written to avoid over-reaching or unintended consequences.  In many of the current bullying cases, though, the potential dangers do rise to the level of serious harm.  But since they also depend on the mental state of the victims, it's not a simple matter to craft the appropriate response.

I encountered some bullying growing up.  But the bullies were the ones with the real problems - none of them did very well in later life.

[bblackwood]

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 12:43

I encountered some bullying growing up.  But the bullies were the ones with the real problems - none of them did very well in later life.

I suspect that's par for the course.

[Jay Kadis]

Skullsessions wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 10:28

I'm certainly not a supporter of "bullying". I was bullied as a kid, as know I bullied others once in a while. But, setting a dress on fire with someone in it is aggravated battery...attempted murder, among other things.  It's not "bullying".

It was the culmination of long, escalating bullying.  It would have been better to have stopped the process before it got incendiary.

[Taproot]

There are portions of the proposed laws I don't agree with, like modeling them after hate crime laws, but I do agree with making it a law to require schools to implement a policy on bullying and enforce it. I don't agree with targeting the child with legal action. They're kids. Kids are cruel sometimes. The teachers and administration know it's going on. Always have. They just don't do anything about it. This was true in my days of school and it is still the case IMHO.

[PookyNMR]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 11:16

There are TONS of things I won't allow my kids to do, but that doesn't mean there should be a law against those behaviors. We can't legislate people's behavior into a utopian society, far too many examples around to ignore that.

I agree, we can't over-legislate.  That's not the answer.

I also agree that parents need to firmly lay down (and enforce) standards of behavior for children.

The problem is that many parents don't discipline (or even really parent) their children, so these children grow up with a dysfunctional set of boundaries.

Another problem is that bullying can be very serious.  When I was growing up one of our school bullies ended up hurting one of our friends in an all out disgusting sex crime.  The sad part is that there are few repercussions for such things and even fewer allowable tools do deal with them well.

[Tom L]

PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 16:17

The problem is that many parents don't discipline (or even really parent) their children, so these children grow up with a dysfunctional set of boundaries.

[Edvaard]

Taproot wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 15:56

There are portions of the proposed laws I don't agree with, like modeling them after hate crime laws, but I do agree with making it a law to require schools to implement a policy on bullying and enforce it. I don't agree with targeting the child with legal action. They're kids. Kids are cruel sometimes. The teachers and administration know it's going on. Always have. They just don't do anything about it. This was true in my days of school and it is still the case IMHO.

That makes too much sense. You'd never get elected.

Kids should not have to suffer as victims, but if we realize that many bullies are victims themselves at home, it makes no sense either that anything about the situation could be treated in adult terms. The kids in school should not have to deal with it, but the "perpetrators" are usually from less than good homes, and should not be treated as criminals for such misfortune.

When/where I grew up, corporal punishment was seeing its last days but the situation was so entirely different from parochial school to public school. CP existed in all places at the time, but the whole attitude of intolerance to disturbance at the parochial schools dispensed with any nonsense whatsoever,  repression of bullying, as such, never even entering into it.

PS

I know that most British subjects on this site should know this, but "public school" in the US means "public", as opposed the the British school terminology for private schools as "public."

[Gold]

Taproot wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 15:56

like modeling them after hate crime laws,

I can't believe hate crimes laws have stood up to Supreme Court challenges. It is the only time that a law is written differently for the same crime depending on what you are thinking. I don't like that one bit.

[Taproot]

Gold wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 17:04

Taproot wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 15:56 like modeling them after hate crime laws, I can't believe hate crimes laws have stood up to Supreme Court challenges. It is the only time that a law is written differently for the same crime depending on what you are thinking. I don't like that one bit.

Oh, they are complete horse shit, but that's another thread entirely.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....", but only when it's convenient, for some.

[Samc]

Taproot wrote on Fri, 29 October 2010 04:17

Gold wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 17:04 Taproot wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 15:56 like modeling them after hate crime laws, I can't believe hate crimes laws have stood up to Supreme Court challenges. It is the only time that a law is written differently for the same crime depending on what you are thinking. I don't like that one bit. Oh, they are complete horse shit, but that's another thread entirely. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....", but only when it's convenient, for some.

Although I agree that 'hate crime' laws are strange (at best), but we should not forget that the quoted statement above did not in fact refer to "all men" and certainly did not include women...  

[Gold]

I know the original impetus for these laws was to have a federal statute to prosecute crimes that local authorities were unwilling to prosecute. Like federal civil rights laws.

I think that there must be a better way. I'm all for judicial sentencing discretion. That's where 'motivation' belongs.