Slashdot Mirror
States Seek Laws to Curb Online Bullying
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that many states are considering laws to help crack down on "cyberbullying". "Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it will be difficult to draft a cyberbullying law that doesn't infringe on free-speech rights. 'The fact that two teenagers say nasty things about each other is a part of growing up,' he said. 'How much authority does a school have to monitor, regulate and punish activities occurring inside a student's home?' In Arkansas, the state Senate this month passed a bill calling on school districts to set up policies to address cyberbullying only after it was amended to settle concerns about students' free-speech rights."
Reagan said it of government, i say it of schools. Replace the "government" with "school" and "economic" with "scholastic" from here.
Have you read my journal today?
Laws are not the key to solving social problems - education is. While I would say that in some cases a law may change the public perception of a situation and may even change something, with teenagers this will most likely not work. It may even have the opposite effect than intended - it might make bullying "cooler" because you're breaking a law.
Another question is what should happen to the people breaking that law? Do we want to have teenagers to pay fines for it or do we let them do social work somewhere? Will that have the intended effect on them?
Like the article stated, teachers need to talk to their students and the parents need to participate in this as well. Nobody should feel good by bullying someone else and this cannot be achieved by passing a law.
The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
Will this apply in his bullying?
The answer isn't to shield kids from bullying, it's to teach them how to deal with it. Someone talks shit, get up in their face and make them back it up or back the fuck off. Someone shoves you, you deck them. I tried the ignore them stuff until I was a Junior in High School, at which point I started forcing kids to put up or shut up. Someone started running their mouth? Got right in their face less than a foot away and told them, either hit me or shut the fuck up, cause talkin shit is for pussies. Someone shoved me? They got thrown against a locker and told if they wanna get physical, they better be ready to fight. Wanna know what happened once I started doing that? Wouldn't ya know it, they stopped that shit, hell some of them even became good friends of mine after a while. Acting like a little bitch and running for someone else to protect you or shield you from the evils of the world isn't productive, it's how things like Columbine happen. Back in the day there weren't school shootings cause kids weren't taught to be little girls and cry everytime someone was mean, they were taught to stand up for themselves.
Post a story about some teacher demanding that some kid take down his personal, non-school website calling the teacher a poopy-head and the /. comments will be against the teacher, citing "free speech".
/. comments will be for the teacher, citing "I was bullied when I was a kid".
Post a story about some teacher demanding that some kid take down his personal, non-school website calling some kid a poopy-head and the
Either the school does control the lives of the kids outside of school or it does not.
The authority of the school should end where the school grounds end.
No, but it is still stupidity when you miss that "Post Anonymously" check box there above the submit button.
They shouldn't have any authority as to what goes on inside a student's home. In fact, they shouldn't have any authority what goes on outside of their campus.
Home? That should be the parents domain. Now, if the parents go and actually ask the school for help, well that's different...same thing goes with the student, if he asks for the school's help then they should help.
Unless they are asked for their assistance, school's should have ZERO input on what goes on OUTSIDE of their campus. The only time I would disagree with that is if something is happening, the parents are unaware, and the child wont tell them.
Living With a Nerd
I just watched something on TV about Cyber-bullying. This obese girl demonstrated how she was constantly picked on over the internet. The result? She was getting floods of IM's from about 3 people saying nasty things. She begins crying like her life is over. Apparently, right clicking on their screenname and click "block this user" is too dificult a solution :|
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
While I think this law is stupid as well, it is because of enforcement reasons, not free speech.
Give me a friggin break! Since when is bullying protected under free speech rights? What the hell is NOT protected under free speech? Can I smoke at work as a protest against the proletariat? Can I smack around some ACLU lawyers to show my displeasure with NAMBLA? Would the ACLU protect my right to do so? Could 9-11 be considered "Protest Terrorism"?
I love the Bill of Rights more than the next guy, but the ACLU needs to get a friggin grip!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The government cannot regulate morals, at least they *shouldn't*.
There are laws for slander, libel, and other manner of social discord that allow us to deal with such problems already. The fact that the Internet and computers have added a new dimension to society does not mean that we need new laws. We simply need to revise current laws to include this new dimension.
That it happens in a school social setting is not new, as was stated, but the lack of training for students as to what constitutes libel, slander, or other actions that could result in litigation or penalties is sad.
Education is what is needed, not regulation. Less government, not more. Intelligence, not money will go the furthest towards eliminating such problems.
Yes, I believe that if they break a law on the Internet, it is a civil courts place to punish that person rather than the school's place. No more he said, she said. Lets have them show the judge and let the judge decide if there is anything to punish. Perhaps a special court to streamline such cases, but make it court. Punishment is then meted out in a legally binding way rather than arbitrary decisions of school leaders.
Punishments for minors is not a bad thing as schools, parks, and other public places need cleaning and looking after. A little community service gives them time to think about what they did.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
At least, I hope not. Free speech is something that we shouldn't have a double standard about.
I admit it—I was bullied when I was a kid. And yet, I still don't believe that government should step in to force kids (or anyone, for that matter) to take down their personal, non-school web sites.
I'm not sure why you're assuming that /.'ers will in general put overprotectionism over free speech. I'd guess the exact opposite.
If the government want's to stop bullying, they should shut themselves down. It is bad enough that they are such a bully around the world, but at home is unforgivible. The suspension of Habius Corpus, that's bullying. No knock warrants and random searches, that is bullying. Compulsitory education, that's bullying. The IRS, that's bullying. The "war on drugs", that's bullying. All the frivilous tickets they give out, that's bullying. Looser pays lawsuits, that's bullying. And they help a lot of other bullies, like the copyright and patent lawsuit cartels. Yeah, of course everyones acting like a bully. We have such a fine example.
Why should schools be doing this? What is wrong with the parents?
Schools started off being there for education, then sport and now they're also day care -- a place to dump the kids so that the parents can go to work. Should they also be the moral guardians too? If this trend continues, the schools/government will own your kids and allow you to borrow them for a few hours on weekends.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...when it becomes harassment. I think a law that defined cyberbullying as harassment would be much easier to enforce. As to the ACLU's comment, cyberbullying should NOT be a part of 'growing up', at least not to the levels many kids seem to be taking it these days.
Bullying is a societal failure. No amount of change of policy will be able to correct it. This is simply another feel-good piece of legislation.
No one had sympathy for bullies. They were understood as violent assholes and no judge, jury or parent except maybe their own parents cared if they got tore up at school by their victim. In the 50s when my dad was growing up, he beat the hell out of one such bully and the principal not only didn't even haul him into his office, but instead grabbed the bully, who was busted up and bleeding and pulled him into his office for a lecture before the dread phone call to mom and dad (who gave him a whipping that afternoon for picking fights). The threat of violence works. It is what human beings are conditioned to respect. Bullies frequently get away with it because today they're protected by bureaucrats ranging from school employees to social welfare people to the legal system. You beat one up today, you get expelled and possibly prosecuted. All of the laws against the use of force by students protect the aggressor today, not the victim. School shootings only happen because people refuse to admit that people like bullies only understand the language of violence.
I've used violence against bullies before, and I know from experience that it works. The more they bully, the more you make them suffer. Eventually, they get the idea and leave you alone. To paraphrase Heinlein, it's as easy as training a puppy.
Dealing with adversity, frustration, rejection and so on is part of the process of growing up and the creation of psychological defense mechanisms.
By over protecting our children we are, in fact, under-preparing them to deal with an often ignored fact of life: it's HARD.
But, then again, it will help support the world thriving antidepressant industry...
Read the comments on the dupe.
I agree with that. But there is also a tendency for people to look to "authority" for "protection" from "threats".
Even when that authority should NOT have any authority over the perceived "threat". Which is why I referenced the "bullying".
Once people start expecting/demanding that an "authority" provide them "protection", that authority will not willingly yield any of its newly found power.
Welcome to Zero Tolerance, where even if you're defending yourself you will get into (serious) trouble for a violent encounter ...
...
The fact is whether you realize it or not you will be dealing with bullies for the rest of your life; they may be a co-worker, your boss or even a relative. Rarely (as an adult) is a confrontation an appropriate way to deal with bullies so why should you start to teach your child to deal with it that way; imagine your child being "bullied" by their boss and responding with "Hey bitch, wana go?"
I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate to teach your children to defend themselves, but fighting is an inappropriate behavior which should be discouraged.
If this isn't a case of a solution looking for a problem (or a politician pandering for votes), I don't know what is. There aren't even laws prohibiting real world bullying, are there? Kids get in fights all the time and here in a large metro area, unless there's a weapon involved, it's usually handled within the school. Are we really such a nation of pansies that we need laws to protect us from being ridiculed on the internet?
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Protecting children from online harassment? It's already been tried. In fact, I know of a version with extra "features" It not only protects children, but adults too. Don't adults deserve some protection too? It even protects the government from online harassment! It's been a few years since I've been to China, but I know the country would be different without it.
Need more coffee!
I thought it said GATES Seeks Laws to Curb Online Bullying.
Then he'd have to shut up permanently.
If there were a +Sad modifier, I'd use it on your post. I understand what you're saying -- that blocking offensive communication on the Internet is pretty easy -- but I think you're discounting the effect of the harassment. If you've ever received a harassing phone call, you know what I mean; you can hang up easy enough, set a custom ringer to silent, but it's still kind of unnerving.
Does this mean there should be regulations? Eh. I don't think that's the logical conclusion. It just made me kind of sad to see your lack of empathy for that girl.
Sony ha
But we already have a different set of standards for children, and not only is it accepted, it's exactly the way it should be.
We personal freedoms comes personal responsibility. Children under 18 are normally (except in extreme cases) not held responsible for their actions. If my son breaks my neighbors window, I'm responsible - even if I subsequently make my son work it off.
Likewise, if my son libels or slanders someone, they'll come to me looking for restitution.
[disclaimer: can't = it's not legal to do so]
Kid's can't drive. They can't vote. They can't buy or consume alcohol. They can't go to R rated movies. They can't buy cigarettes. Do I need to go on?
So the difference here is that the parents should be watching what their kids are doing, not the government, but if we had some policy where kids could only publish online after their parent's approval, we'd get a bunch of young slashdot punks complaining about that, too.
Now, all that said - I agree that the government ought to just keep out of it. The last thing we need is more government intervention in our lives. These are just websites; they cannot hurt anybody. If the site is threatening or libelous, then the target of the offence, and his or her parents, can take legal action already. We don't need more laws.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Here in Colorado there are still strict rules against wearing trenchcoats and numerous suspensions, counciling sessions etc... to deal with bullying. All of this is of course the Columbine effect. A thred like this one can't exist for long with out the mention of the tragedy. Bullying is not what drove Harris and Klebold to mass murder, it's a myth that simply will not die. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/colum bine/print.html
Bullies are part of growing up. It's part of growing up for the persons being bullied and the bullies themselves. It is not evil behavior that must be erradicated because another Columbine could happen again. It's natural behavior that occurs in all human cultures and many in the animal kingdom as well. Those that are the victims of bullies have great lessons to learn that will serve them well later in life. Those that are bullies also have lessons to learn. I can't imagine anything more destructive that taking kids in their learning years and secluding them from this natural behavior. Sometimes kids need to touch a hot stove to understand cause and effect.
Yes, what I think we really need is less protections for juveniles and/or their parents.
Kid fucks somebody's reputation over (and it can be very, very bad) with lies... nail 'em for slander.
Kid sucker-punches somebody and knocks out some teeth, nail 'em for assault
While kids are perhaps too young to have a firm grip on some of the finer points of law (hell, even most adults would), most of the shit that goes on should be understandable as illegal (and not just "oh, that's bad) by anyone past the fourth grade.
Punish ACTUAL bullying, at its source: Poor parenting.
Cyber-bullying is only a problem because it leads to verbal bullying and that leads to physical bullying. I could not care less about kids calling me names when I was in school. That sort of "bullying" means nothing. What I had a problem with was being pushed, tripped, pinched, punched, and kicked. When one kid assaults another kid, $500 fine to their parents. I guarantee that will solve the problem damn quick.
Oh, Nanny (state). Protect me from those mean mean mean meanmean people on the internets.
It's only a matter of time before bullys counter this legislation by coming out with Bullyanonymizer.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
1 - Libel is not just a civil wrong, in many/most jurisdictions it is a criminal offence.
2 - Civil litigation is only for the rich. If some kid is being bullied by some other kid, it is entirely appropriate for an adult/teacher/cop to step in and put an end to it. Victims are often victims because they can't/won't stick up for themselves. You seem to be saying that it's ok for them to stay in that state permanently. It's not. Decent human beings protect the weak.
You can be visited by a truancy officer if your kid isn't at school, or is observed outside of school during school hours. Your child can be taken into state custody by CPS if they think something "isn't right". Families are often harassed for home schooling their children. Believe me, America's public school system is a huge, powerful, and very scary force.
Sony ha
The best defense is self defense, and only used in physical altercations... if you can't fight off a bully using words with words of your own, you probably shouldn't resort to hitting because you're the one instigating the assault in that case.
Can anyone point me to a real example where a bullying victim became the one punished for standing up for themselves where it was legislated? At the school I went to, both parties got equally busted, so if someone picked a fight with you, you may as well practically kill them because you'll be seeing them again after school in detention, and if you dont take them down in the first fight, they'll come back at you after school.
stuff |
Q: "How much authority does a school have to monitor, regulate and punish activities occurring inside a student's home?"
A: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NONE!
Next question.
Student Press Law Center
"Schools always had the ability to regulate speech and actions that disrupt the educational environment," [sayeth the Principle of a highschool]
Everyone has a right to an education. If some fuckwit interferes with that right to an education, the school can punish the perpetrator, even if it happens outside of school hours.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
...captcha "schooled"
Oh noes! people making fun of you on the internets! serious business for sure.
People who are incapable of feeling the waters before diving in should not expect help getting out of the water. I'm a moderator on a very large message board, and our "off topic" forum sees a ton of traffic. we get people coming from all over trying to jump in and become "one of the crowd" without first seeing what the crowd is like. It's like going to a bar and expecting to be cool with the regulars on the first visit. It's a culture you're trying to dive into, and if your first posts come off like you think you are "all that" and should be treated as such... things will NOT go well. a lot of forum dwellers make it a game to see how mean they can be without actually breaking forum rules. It's the internet. It's not a friendly place. Take a few days to get to know the people you're trying to mesh with before opening your mouth.
Back in high school I had a large gas-powered RC helicopter and a couple estes rockets mounted on pylons. Nobody EVER screwed with me.
Online it's easy to avoid people. If people are harrassing you, block them and ignore them. Flag them as Spam if it's email. If they can't get a response from you they will leave you alone. Worst case scenario you change your email address / screen name. It can be a hassle, but if you play it smart they'll get bored and leave you alone.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
It's illegal to walk up to someone and verbally abuse them, make harassing telephone calls, write them threatening letters, etc.
How does bullying someone via e-mail or IM make the situation any different? WTF is the point in making yet another law when we already HAVE applicable laws against harassment and intimidation?
The authority of the school should end where the school grounds end.
Do something about bullying on campus first before claiming any authority off campus. Something other than Zero Tolerance which punishes the victims disproportionally because the perpetrators know how not to get caught (or is on the sports team).
And stop putting one Good Kid between two troublemakers just because you can't police your own classroom.
And where the hell does a public school get the authority to force the whole student bodychool to attend a funeral in the gym during school hours for one of those two troublemakers who died playing chicken against the other one! Where every student had to walk past the damn open casket! And then the first students through decided to hug the parents, so everyone after them felt they had to too! The school even posted teachers at the exits so no one would leave and never told anyone that attendance was voluntary!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
...in the schoolyard with several of your best mates at your side.
Geez, no wonder the world's the way it is today. Everybody's running home to mommy instead of learning to deal with it like adults: gang up on the bleeding sod and beat the living crap out of him!
Bunch of sissies, the lot of ya.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
I know the place anonymity has on the Internet - but I believe the single greatest source of malfeasance comes from anonymity, both in legitimate forums and in numerous scams. Maybe some rethinking of the way the Internet works is in order. A difficult problem - how to link any particular network transaction (and I'm specifically not thinking of TCP/IP here, because I'm not entirely convinced it can be retooled to represent "packet from Mr. Smith", rather than "packet from device") to an identity.
By keeping anonymity, the only "solution" to this issue would be draconian laws that invariably would be abused to punish the victims as much as the tormentors (potential for innocent bystander carnage is large).
sloth jr
There are laws on the books to cover terroristic threats via telephone and letter. Threats via the internet, by email, blog, etc-, should be treated the same way.
Just because the delivery method is slightly different, that doe not change the intent of threats. A threat via telephone is the same threat if you IM, blog or email someone.
I can't believe the ACLU is actually spending money on this.
Well, nobody ever said the ACLU has a shred of common sense. They have good intent but unfortunately they seem to consistantly pursue the wrong things.
Of course they usually pursue matters from a liberal point rather than common sense. Such as Affirmative Action for example. Basing job placement on race is completely wrong.
I hope they start with the RIAA. It's just getting out of hand.
The truth shall set you free!
Because more laws are better. Guns should be illegal because you can kill someone with them, because there wasn't a law dealing with murder already. Some people see the need to legislate every little detail of everything, even stuff that has already been legislated previously.
During my stay in Junior High, I learned that fighting fire with fire was the best way to combat being bullied.
If someone calls you names, tape record them and hand it over to the school. Have your parents/guardian demand something is done. I've seen this done, and it actually worked well. The principal made an announcment the next day about verbal bullying and how stupid it was, and everyone started laughing at the kid who said the names he read off. Repeat until names stop.
If someone hits you, check if a teacher is watching. If not, hit them back. A fight may ensue, and if so remember to go for places that hurt the longest. Avoid the head if possible, you don't want to kill the kid. I recommend the joints, and it hurts just moving them afterwards. If a teacher is watching, run over hurt and scared and tell them what happened. It may hurt your pride to act like a wuss for a few moments, but it's well worth it.
Bullying is not solved by parents, it is solved by the children. These elected officials seem to have forgotten that.
no one should have to kill themselves because adults can't figure out what to do.
And I don't mean the paddle either. When my dad was in school, if you so much as talked out of turn in class the teacher would smack you in the head with a dictionary. Pick a fight? Well, the entire school owned and operated rifles (it was the wild west, my dad's old), so no one even gave it a second thought. Not surprisingly, the kids were well-behaved.
stuff |
This is the most awful idea I've ever heard. The free speech implications are quite troubling and you know that in reality these sort of laws get used preferentially against people with unpopular views. But worse than this is the fact that it won't help any kids out and might make their lives worse.
I suspect other people on slashdot were bullied as children as well and you know the one thing guaranteed to make it worse is ineffective appeals for help from authorities. If the kids at your school find out you went to the police over some Items things are likely to get much worse. Everything and more than can happen to you online can just happen to you in school.
Disgustingly our schools can't even (or won't) control real physical teasing and picking on. Why not start with trying to deal with bullying in the context where the school has much greater control and knowledge rather than online? Ohh right, it's because this law is less about making children's lives better as it is about soothing adult consciences. They can pretend the bullying isn't happening if they don't see it but if it's on a web page they feel guilty.
If you want to fix (mitigate really) the problem of bullying and teasing you need to change some fundamental structural features of teacher/parent incentives. Right now there is strong disincentive for the teachers to really do anything about bullying. Even though the teachers might know who is doing the bullying they rarely have proof and punishing the offenders without it risks great flak from their parents or maybe even a lawsuit. Also once they involve themselves in the situation they create all sorts of problems for themselves (potential lawsuit if things go bad b/c they have shown they knew about the issue). Even with the best intentions in the world teachers, being only human like the rest of us, will ignore or 'not notice' bullying they know is happening but can't see or worse ineffectively impose minor punishments that, like this law, just make the situation worse.
Not bullying/teasing is like being polite. Any attempt to teach it by legalistic formal rules will just encourage the bad behavior elsewhere. However, just as parents can teach politeness by punishing for sassy tones and other subtle types of impoliteness that violate no legalistic rule bullying could be prevented by punishing the bullies whenever you knew they had done wrong, whether you caught them in the act or not.
In order to deter bullying teachers need to fear parental complaints less and have a stronger incentive to stop the behavior. Basically we need a change in attitude where teachers are held just for the bullying that happens in their classes as for any punishment they might dish out. If we can't stop the pressure on teachers from outrage parents of punished children maybe we should make teachers legally liable for bullying that happens in their classroom to even things out despite the obvious problems with this idea. Perhaps instead we should remove local control of schools short circuiting the influence of parents on the school and hence teachers?
Frankly I'm not sure how to change the current incentive balance toward stopping bullies. I just know that something needs to be done and it isn't more ineffective legalistic attempts to clamp down on one aspect of the problem.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Growing up all of the schools I saw turned a blind eye to bullies, name calling etc. I still don't see schools doing much about this kind of thing on the playground or in the classroom. Now that it is in the digital realm, which in my opinion is easier to ignore, are they pretending to care? Also, at what point is the action bullying? Truth hurts at times and since when are we protected from the critical eye of another?
We already have laws against stalking, bullying and picking fights don't we? Why do we need more that specify this also counts for online. This is going to be just another law just like the CAN-SPAM act which nobody can and will enforce. It will however be enforced against (free/online) speech, journalism and soap-box criticism on the government.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Politicians attack those things that they can have zero actual effect upon per maximum soccermommy goodness.
Next up, a bill to regulate the TIDES.
Kid's can't drive. They can't vote. They can't buy or consume alcohol. They can't go to R rated movies. They can't buy cigarettes. Do I need to go on?
Yet they can still be tried as adults for certain crimes.
We personal freedoms comes personal responsibility.
Yet it seems like the only time kids are treated as adults are as you put it in extreme cases
This seems wrong.
I agree with the rest of your post though.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
How about making RL bullying legal and enforce it before making it illegal on the net? I don't agree with this bill, but doesn't that make more sense?
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
Good. They could start with Steve Ballmer.
<nitpick>In the case of the R rated movies, "can't" != "illegal". Minors are forbidden from entering said movies by voluntary theatre policy, not the law.</nitpick>
This attitude is exactly why bullying is such a problem in the US. Repeatedly while I was a child teachers choose not to intervene to stop bullies on the theory that kids should take care of themselves.
I mean why not take this same attitude for sexual harrasment. Sure kids at school are calling your daughter a slut and a whore and suggesting in class that she blow them but she should just stand up for herself and take care of it. If the white guys at school are calling the black kid nigger and slave or the jew a kike the minority kids should just stand up for themselves right?
What I find most abhorrent about this attitude is that most people who hold it wouldn't dream of applying it in situations like sexual or racial harassment. It isn't a real solution to bullying it is just a way to say that it isn't important or a big deal. If you wouldn't tell the one black kid at school to just take it like a man when all the white kids called him a nigger why would you try to tell that to the nerd everyone hates?
Trust me trying to fight back isn't always a good solution. Sometimes other people are bigger or come in greater numbers than you. Or for instance in my case everyone else could run faster than I and just laughed and taunted me while staying out of reach whenever teachers weren't around. The idea that every kid should have to engage in a rocky like training program or be subject to repeated physical violence not to be persecuted is absurd. Things like Columbine happen BECAUSE of attitudes like this. If your tormentors are all big jocks on the football team the very attitude that says you should take care of yourself and the feeling of powerlessness drives one toward guns to even the score.
Complaining to the teacher may not be productive but that is a totally different question than whether the teacher should do something about it on their own accord. It's the same way that it might not be a good idea to report your neighbor to the authorities for serious fire code violations or for shooting guns into the air but the authorities should surely try and enforce these rules.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Teach your kid how to punch with his right, jab with his left, and then tell him to go totally ape-shit on his tormentor until somebody pulls him off the bully.
Works every time, and its a great self-esteem buiilder.
What?
Is this a joke? Someone above said that some fat chick cried because she was made fun of online. His comment was "is it too hard to block them?" or something to that effect. And he's dead right. How is this even happening? Ya, if you decide to send your picture to someone and you're ugly, you might get made fun of, so don't do it. If you get bullied in a chat room, guess what, there are a fucking million other chat rooms. In REAL life you can't just click x and go somewhere else in a second, on the internet you can. This is a NON-issue. NEXT.
Police (and the law) have two phrases they use which parallel your "preventing distractions to other students":
1) "interference with police duties"
2) "creating a public nuisance"
Boy howdy those can be stretched pretty far in interpretation.
Why not have a website devoted to "outing" cyber-bullies? A la the sex offender registry? If someone is found to be a bully on a regular basis, the most lasting punishment would be to have them publicly named for permanent reference.
Yes, I know it would be harsh for someone to perhaps lose an opportunity at a job when they're 30 for something they did when they were 14... but I just have zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense. I know that being picked on and picking on others is part of growing up - but I've also witnessed that a lot of folks who are bullies when they're younger tend to maintain a fair part of that as they get older. If they're so proud of that behavior, let us give them an internet badge of sorts and let them deal with the consequence.
I was fortunate enough to be a fairly large guy and so never got bullied seriously - but I still think we should have a strong stance against ANYONE who preys on the small/weak at any age. I feel that preying on the weak is one of the underlying issues behind major "adult" conflicts, as well, so we shouldn't be afraid to fight it hard and early.
I was once suspended for harassment because I made fun of a kid on IM while I was at home and when we got to school he tackled and choked me. Apparently the argument was that it was something I did at home but because he tackled me, it came to school and thus they had to deal with it.
A few of my friends were the victim of bullying in high school. Mostly verbal and sometimes physical violence. None of us were big enough or strong enough to fight back, and the school didn't do much when they complained. One of the guys decided to fight back in his own twisted way. He waited till school was out and then hacksawed the lock off of $bully's locker. Then he emptied the contents of the locker into some big garbage bags, locked the locker back up with a similar lock and buried the bags in a dumpster a few blocks away.
The next morning $bully tries a half dozen times but can't unlock his locker. Finally the principal comes with the bolt cutters and snips off the lock. Oh no! the locker is empty. All the textbooks? Gone. The notes and assignments and the essay he had been writing? Gone. His metalwork project? Gone. Gym clothes, $100 Nike's, calculator? Gone. Everything gone.
Did it stop the bullying? Not as far as I can remember. Did we feel better? Oh yes indeed.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
I have watched this submission's comments and am fascinated how close it is to talk radio calls I have heard about the subject. Interestingly, there is a group that seems to believe that somehow bullying is an important part of a social norm, whether they explicitly say that or not. All I can say about these people, is that they are at best - dysfunctional. Others seem to be over the top in how to deal with the bullies. This to me, is also, dysfunctional. Neither reaction will ever contribute to solving the problem. Nor will a new law.
At a low level, the bullying can and should be dealt with by the school via progressive suspensions and expulsion. For those who say the bullies then will just sit on their ass and play games and not learn anything, I can just say that's fine. These kids aren't learning anything anyway, and on top of it, are preventing others from learning and wrecking their lives. Boot them out. If they look at it as a reward, fine, as long as they are kept away from those who want to learn. They'll find out the truth. No, this is not creating new criminals down the road, these types are slated for that anyway.
In fact, if the bullying is physical assault, that is criminal, should result in charges, and if proven, convictions. Libel and slander are harder to prove to prove and often fall under civil codes. Hate crime legislation criminalizes such under certain conditions, and hasn't really been too effective. But where proven, fines and judgments should be levied and restitution aggressively pursued. If the court action is for cyberbullying, in addition to fines, seizure of their equipment and a ban on computer ownership and use be applied.
In any event though, bullying, cyber or otherwise, is not normal, and should not be tolerated.
National Guard when those nasty bullies come after them...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
"Laws are not the key to solving social problems"
While I understand where you are coming from, I don't totally agree. It would be nice if education could solve all of our social problems but, unfortunately, there is a percentage of the world's population who are assholes. This has always been the case and it always will be.
There are some people who don't care to be "educated" and they will do what they will do period. The sad thing is that bullies on the playground sometimes grow up to be bullies in the work place. One out of ten workers are work place bullies. Europe is ahead of the curve on this one and has laws that address this issue. No amount of education will change a person who is a bully deep down. It goes beyond reasoning.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
When you quote something from an article which you believe supports your view, you should read the entire article. (Hint: The article basically says the opposite of what you're claiming here.)
Why don't they just use restraining orders? Then the offending person can't contact the person who took out the order.
This whole issue of adding laws on top of acts that are already crimes strikes me as pointless. It is like "hate crime" laws. As long as you only kill your own race it is ok? Maybe you have to be polite when you do the killing.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"How much authority does a school have to monitor, regulate and punish activities occurring inside a student's home?"
-- None whatsoever. Once it leaves school grounds it's the parent's responsibility - and no one elses. Stop trying to blame shift. Control your computer and your house - or get off my internet and stop ruining it for the rest of us.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
[nitpick]Illegal(Webster) is something that goes against rules or laws. In this case, they're breaking theater policy(rules), which can be described as 'illegal'.[/nitpick]
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
Oh, does this make World of Warcraft illegal then?
"Bullying can include threats, slander and/or attacks."
And as has been made clear, the ACLU does not defend these things. So why do you put up that straw man?
"For example, years ago on an old dialup BBS, someone sent me an ASCII bomb that hosed my computer so bad it had to be restarted."
Holy Hell, the horror! An ASCII bomb! Thank God you're still alive to talk about it.
"While I don't play with IRC anymore, I understand you can do nasty things with someone's computer through it. Is that considered free speech?"
Your entire post is filled with this bullshit. The ACLU doesn't claim that computer intrusions and perpetration of fraud/slander/whatever actual crime are "free speech." That's entirely your own straw man argument, which you use to promote your police-state agenda.
"Is calling the 10-yr old chubby girl "Fatty Patty" until she breaks down in tears free speech?"
It's probably legally harassment if you keep doing it, and you're definitely an asshole for doing it. Nonetheless, we have to think about whether we want to outlaw name-calling to stop you. Does it cause enough harm that we're willing to put up with a society where any insult might land us in jail, should the jury decide we said something in a "mean spirit"? As implied by your other posts, you personally might enjoy such a society -- but most rational humans, with the ability to see beyond your false attributions and propagandizing bullshit, would not.
"Is hate speech protected under free speech?"
How do you define "hate speech"? Saying something mean to a person? What do you mean by "protected under free speech"? If the speech is threatening, then the threat is a crime in itself. If the speech is racist, spoken by an employer or business associate, then the crime is racial discrimination and the speech is merely evidence of it. If you're shouting "greenie" as you violently attack that green-skinned person, I'd say your attack is quite sufficient to comprise a crime.
Actual threats, slander, libel, and fraud are all things which are not defended by the ACLU. The problem is that people like you would like to outlaw all sorts of other speech, just to ensure a blanket of enforcement with no loopholes.
Perhaps you can understand one simple idea: if you imprison everyone who ever holds a kitchen knive, you have successfully imprisoned every knife-wielding murderer; you have also imprisoned everyone else. Thus, imprisoning everyone who holds a kitchen knife is not a proper solution to knife-wielding murder. You must narrow your definition of the crime until it fits the actual harm or actual threat involved.
If you're being bullied, don't fight the bastard. Kill him. Kill his friends. Kill his family, if necessary. Show no mercy.
This advice brought to you by the GNAA.
How much authority does a school have to monitor, regulate and punish activities occurring inside a student's home?
None. In loco parentis only applies while the child is at school. Schools are not allowed to act as parents when the kid is at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis
Any attempts for the schools to regulate the kids' home behavior should be met with a stern warning.
That depends on where you are. In Saskatchewan (and I think most other provinces if not all of them) film ratings and age restrictions are established and enforced by provincial law.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I agree that children tend to be more malleable. The younger bad behavior is caught the better. But I also believe that bullying goes beyond education. I'll qualify that statement with "in some cases." Some children bully because of psychological problems and these are the ones who will probably grow to be work place bullies. One in Ten.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The supreme court ruled 37 years ago that bullying is not protected speech, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District: "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."
Don't blame the teachers.
Teachers are trained to teach educational topics to students who want to learn - they're not 2nd parents to 100's of their students.
If you can't control your own children, then maybe you should be advocating for counselors to be put into schools. These are people who are specifically trained to deal with the problem you're talking about.
Additionally, there is nothing I hate more than uninterested trouble makers preventing other students in the class from learning. These days, teachers spend more time getting the class to sit down and shut up than they do actually teaching students.
Under your proposal, we'd have an education system where everyone comes out the other end as mediocre brickheads (due to a lack of advanced educational material being taught properly). You're hurting the students who become engineers, doctors, etc - the ones who don't need to waste their school years with behavioral advice every 5 minutes.
None?
Property is theft.
>The government cannot regulate morals, at least they *shouldn't*.
Why? Really, by what justification do they regulate *anything
else*?
It's immoral to sell tainted food, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to rape somebody, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to kill somebody, that's why it's illegal.
There had darn well *better* be some *moral* reasons
these people can regulate me, or they can take their uniformed
guys with guns and the guys in black robes who tell the
guys with guns what to do and shove 'em.
But schools are not appropriate substitutes for police or judicial systems. Schoolers do not have the resources, training, or legal authority to deal with crimes justly.
Schools do not provide due process, equal protection, immunity from coercion to incriminate oneself, or any other Constitutional right. Schoolers violate such rights routinely, out of expediency, ignorance, or arrogance. The only penalty that a school is authorized to mete out is the denial of another Constitutional right: the right to a free and appropriate public education. (A right that would not exist if education was not compulsory.)
Legislators who attempt an end-run around the Constitution by making schools responsible for law enforcement via patently unconstituional means are violating their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. They deserve impeachment or recall.
As being a victim of cyber-stalking. While working on a research paper one night, (after months of this shit) I blocked .... I wanna call it 34 AIM accounts for harrassment over the course of the night. Productivity, obviously, was teh suck. Telling me to block it is counterproductive and insulting and blocking it doesn't help.
I dont quite get it I guess. There are groups trying to make it so schools can force a pull down of some students website if it "bullies" another student? Well, technically free speech doesnt come into play if said speech states lies or deflames another. However, schools should not be allowed to enforce that, only the person being infriged on should. This kind of thing makes me want to put up a site for those that do want to talk bad that the schools/government would have a difficult time touching lol