Ontario Proposes School Cyber-Bullying Law

nursegirl writes "Ontario announced today a proposal to change their education act to add both physical bullying and cyber-bullying to the list of behaviors that can get a student suspended or expelled. Posting comments, pictures, or videos attacking other students or teachers outside of school hours will carry the risk of school punishment, if the incident is believed to have an 'impact on school climate.'"

Comments

Good on them.

[Caspian]

Laws are always a bit heavy-handed, but still, it's good to see the authorities taking the first few baby-steps to combat bullying.

As someone wiser than me has pointed out, having to "grow a thick skin" shouldn't be the price of living in an information-based society.

Re:Good on them.

[Sinanju]

No, having to grow a thick skin is the price of living in a _free_ society. People are free to say what they like about you (short of libel or slander), even if it hurts your feelings.

Re:Good on them.

[__aaclcg7560]

Thick skin is needed when the kid standing next to you in the boy's bathroom decides to use you as a urinal. Of course, being fat, ugly and a brilliant genius accidentally put into the special ed class doesn't help either. Maybe that's why the teacher laugh when she heard what happen.

Re:Good on them.

[Admiral Ag]

We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying. But a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't yet have the maturity to deal with these things. As an adult, I don't really care if people say mean things about me, and by and large people don't. But high school is a place where you are forced to go with a lot of people who often don't like each other and who spend their time inventing new and cruel ways to torture each other. Often it works because most teenagers care deeply about what the community thinks of them.

For example: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

Laws against adult bullying are a lot more lax because adult bullies have a lot less opportunity to actually have an effect. Children are a lot more vulnerable to this sort of behaviour, both because of their age and the fact that they are pretty much stuck in school and not allowed out. If you hate your co-workers, you can always try to find a new job. In many societies you can't change schools that easily, if at all. Children are also more likely to engage in sociopathic behaviour towards their peers.

Yes. Having a thick skin is the price of living in a free society... but for adults, not for children.

Re:Good on them.

[Gorshkov]

As someone wiser than me has pointed out, having to "grow a thick skin" shouldn't be the price of living in an information-based society.

Agreed. To illistrate the point: let's pretend that my daughter's class pools their money and takes out a full-page add in the local newspaper making insulting & deriding one of their classmates, a teacher, or the principal. Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel.

Nobody? Didn't think so.

Now - will somebody please tell me the difference between that full-page add, and a video posted to youtube?

There *is* none. It's the same act.

"Information-based society" is a cop-out. It's still libel, and it's about bloody time the law started CATCHING UP to the "information-based" society. I don't give a damn about the technology that is or is not involved - People still should be held responsible for their actions.

Re:Good on them.

[Caspian]

I must respectfully disagree. There are some "adults" who never quite grew up, who spend their time trying to hurt people just because it makes them laugh to see other people squirm. Free speech doesn't mean that it's okay to commit purposeful acts of cruelty towards other people.

Let's say a gay person lived in East Bumblefuck, Texas, surrounded by rednecks. Does the right to "free speech" give every ticked-off ex-boyfriend, former friend, or homophobic relative the right to put up a page saying "[name] is gay", and revealing other things about [name] that could get him beaten up or killed?

Re:Good on them.

[Workaphobia]

To illustrate my point: Let's pretend that a group of kids are insulting and deriding one of their classmates in public but off school property - they may congregate on the sidewalk or in a park, talking in loud voices. Whether or not the target is present is irrelevant. Show of hands please, from all of you who think that they should be punished by the school or some other public institution rather than by their parents.

Now, will somebody please tell me the difference between a semi-public gathering among friends that takes place in a park (where anyone can overhear), and one that occurs online?

In both cases, the message is intended primarily for the closed group of friends but is visible by any member of the public, including the victim. To allow government restriction of this harassment, while tempting, is a restriction of free speech; you're telling people what they can and can not express in their communications with their peers.

I suppose the classic distinction between free speech and libel is that the former is in a transient medium, while the latter is mass-distributed and accessible for the long term. The Internet changes the rules of the game by making that line not so obvious. It's no longer how the information is communicated that matters - that's just a technicality. Can we consider instead its intended audience, lifetime, authority, and degree of maliciousness? Perhaps, but it's all a slippery slope towards the censorship of minors by non-parental figures. I'd rather not go in that direction.

Kids have been taking verbal beatings from their peers for centuries. Putting it online can't be much worse.

And as I type that, the first thought that comes to my mind is "Star Wars Kid". So my response is "Lawsuit". Sue for emotional damages rather than outlawing the practice among minors, that way only the acts that really warrant a reaction will get one.

Re:Good on them.

[BillyBlaze]

Yes. Clearly that would be morally wrong, but it's not illegal unless the ex signed an NDA (breach of contract) or the person in question wasn't provably gay (libel, and the truth defense would fail). There's no law against being an asshole or telling secrets, and that's probably for the best.

Re:Good on them.

[Caspian]

I believe that there should be a law against purposely and maliciously attacking someone who didn't attack you first. This applies to verbal attacks as well as physical attacks.

Re:Good on them.

[drsmithy]

We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying.

That's because back in the dark ages when *they* were kids, telephones still had cables attached and there was music on MTV, their parents told them they needed to get over it and stop being such a baby. Unfortunately with today's helicopter parents, bringing up the cotton-wool generation(s), the mere _suggestion_ that someone might be doing any sort of vague harm to their precious darlings is enough to get them parachuting in with all lawyers blazing.

Re:Good on them.

[Twylite]

Adults don't magically gain maturity on reaching 18 or 21. Maturity is gained through a process of learning to have a thick skin ... and that starts very young.

Bullying can only occur when there is a disparity between the aggressor's ability to attack, and the victim's ability to defend. Thus "nerds" being the victims of bullying "jocks".

Now along comes the Internet, and Oh Crap! Jonny Football Hero can't physically bully Nedrick the Nerd anymore, or he's going to have himself photoshopped into a very compromising position and plastered on the bathroom walls.

Taunting has long been the only weapon of the victim of physical bullying. The Institution doesn't give a rat's arse unless they manage to catch a bully in the act. The only "problem" here is that now nerds have given taunting a power-up with technology, to the point that it is actually an effective weapon for a counter-attack.

Children are also more likely to engage in sociopathic behaviour towards their peers.

Although that this statement is completely unfounded, it makes a good point for enforcing rules against physical bullying and leaving free speech the hell alone. It's not coincidence that school shootings are carried out by unpopular, downtrodden kids. If a little more attention was paid to making the True American Football Players realise that being a wimp isn't Unamerican and worthy of being pushed around, then (a) the 99.8% of school football players who don't turn it into a career will get better jobs working for the wimps, and (b) the wimps are less likely to prove that they are clever enough to take out the entire class by applying a bit of forethought (bring a gun) and less weightlifting.

Re:Good on them.

[daigu]

Just for clarification, in places like the U.S., making insulting & deriding statements would be alright if the statements were true. There are also other circumstances - such as posting a video of inappropriate remarks made by said person in a public forum, such as a school assembly - were it might also be alright.

The issue here doesn't seem to be about libel though. The mission of schools to educate may give it some reasonable justification for policing behavior. However, there does seem to be a fine line where you have moved from maintaining an environment conducive to learning to policing for its own sake. When you cross that line, you are no longer a school; you are an arm of law enforcement. Schools should not be an arm of law enforcement. I think that line has been crossed here.

Re:Good on them.

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Kids have been taking verbal beatings from their peers for centuries. Putting it online can't be much worse.

Well apart from the fact that the whole world can see it and it's up there forever, it's no different at all.

Re:Good on them.

[Admiral Ag]

"Adults don't magically gain maturity on reaching 18 or 21."

No they don't. Some of them never do. But I tire of this so-called "argument". We can't tailor the law to every single individual, so we set an age (usually 18) where most people are considered to be responsible. If you think that is the wrong age when most people are responsible, then agitate for it to be raised or lowered. Abandoning it is not an option.

So what if we have to put up with a few mature kids being denied adult rights, or a few immature adults having them. The alternatives of everyone or no-one having them are clearly worse. Ultimately, in human affairs, lines must be drawn somewhere, whether we like it or not.

Re:Good on them.

[zantolak]

The whole world probably has no clue who they are or how the situation came about, and thus have no reason to care anyway.

Re:Good on them.

[fractoid]

Now along comes the Internet, and Oh Crap! Jonny Football Hero can't physically bully Nedrick the Nerd anymore, or he's going to have himself photoshopped into a very compromising position and plastered on the bathroom walls. Actually, I believe the problem is that now Jonny Football Hero can not only beat the crap outta Nedrick the Nerd, but that in the unlikely event that school staff interfere, can simply do so outside of school and record the whole incident on his phone. Then he forwards the video to everyone in the class, prints posters of Ned's head being flushed, and generally makes sure that Ned never EVER forgets not to do Jonny's homework. Never underestimate the ability of vindictive children to adopt new technology, it's on par with that of the Ministry of Defense.

Re:Good on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck designing a reliable method of proving malice as opposed to stupidity/unintention offence/different veiw of what is reasonable

Re:Good on them.

[SpeedyDX]

Are you telling me that a distraught 10 year old who sees a website dedicated entirely to insulting and deriding him is going to LOOK FORWARD to going to school? I don't think you fully understand how children think. Not even marginally close.

When such a situation arises, that 10 year old is going to feel like the entire world (as school is pretty much his entire world at this point in his life) is against him. It's not just a manageable feeling of embarassment or inadequacy. That 10 year old is going to believe that he is worthy of those statements, that those statements against him are fair, and he will start to alter his behaviour to match those statements. You must understand that 10 year olds are not psychologically mature enough to maintain whatever persona they have developed over the course of their lives when such a critical situation arises. This is simple Psychology 100 (or even Sociology 100) material.

YOU can defend against it, because YOU know who YOU are. Most adults (and even a good amount of teens) are able to withstand such harassment because we have had sufficient time and experience to develop our persona and fully embrace it. At 10, a child is still ACQUIRING his persona, and the most important source of this acquisition is not within himself, it is from sources that are external. And of those external sources, peers are one of the most important (along with parents and teachers). Kids literally become who others think they are.

Now, as with everything, there are exceptions. But when you are deciding whether to enact a law like this, you have to keep in mind that even the exceptions don't directly benefit if you don't enact such a law.

What I am saying, after all of that, is that an act like this is in fact essential to maintain an environment conducive to learning. The are too many potential consequences that will arise from such situations for something like this to be ignored.

Re:Good on them.

[aussie_a]

In a free society people have the ability to choose who they do and do not associate with. However the law forces children to go to school. Therefore the law should protect them.

Its bizarre but while one right is infringed on, the other probably should be as well.

Re:Good on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, "ad" only has one 'd'. It's short for "advertisement". Get it?

Re:Good on them.

[AvitarX]

"Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying."

It's funny you say that, because there was an interview on the BBC with a teacher who was complaining about it. It really sounded like he was upset with what happened to him and was pushing for the law.

I believe he was filmed on a cell phone as a student pantsed him and that was put on youtube. The teacher did not seam to really care about the students at all, and only the other faculty.

Re:Good on them.

[Twylite]

Now you see, that's called "assault", and it's a crime no matter what the age or location. Capturing and distributing it means you are making evidence against yourself widely available (read: stupid), so that the cops can enforce the law against "assault". No need for special laws involving bullying.

Re:Good on them.

[Twylite]

Um, my point here is that maturiy is a process, not a date. I'm not arguing about the need to have a date (since we can't assess maturity on an individual basis), but about the idea what we must completely shield people under that age from the stuff they will encounter and have to deal with as adults, thereby preventing the process of maturity, and ensuring that they WILL be children rather than adults at that date.

Emphasis here is on completely shield. Obviously non-adults need greater protection than adults, and can hold less responsibility than adults (and thus have less rights), but there needs to be balance. If you don't have the experiences you need in yout formative years then, well, you don't form right.

Re:Good on them.

[pairo]

So, you mean... Children don't have the right to free speech, but it's okay, since it's for their own good?

Re:Good on them.

[montyzooooma]

"I believe that there should be a law against purposely and maliciously attacking someone who didn't attack you first. This applies to verbal attacks as well as physical attacks."

But..but..but I don't want them taking the Daily Show off air!

Re:Good on them.

[Moraelin]

Jesus F. Christ, not the "free speech" OCPD cases again. "Free speech" never included the right to libel and slander and verbally assault even for adults. Go to your neighbour and tell him "you're a cock-sucking faggot" once too often, and you'll find yourself called to court.

"Free speech" is defined strictly in your relation to Congress. No, really, go actually read that ammendment some day. It doesn't give you a right over anyone else, and it doesn't mean anyone else has to tollerate it.

If you want to use your speech to criticize the government, go ahead. Noone will stop you, regardless of whether you're adult or kid. Rant about Bush or the war in Iraq or about "fascist neo-cons vs bleedin' heart liberals" all you want, and noone will stop you. _That_ is what freedom of speech was supposed to protect.

But that doesn't mean you have a right to verbally bully, slander or libel anyone. Making your neighbour's or classmate's life miserable is _not_ what those founding fathers had in mind. The concern was about being able to tell the king or president to fuck off and change an unpopular policy, not about having a right to go call your neighbour a cocksucker.

And, frankly, it's not how rule of the law was supposed to work. It's supposed to be rule of the law, not rule of the meanest thug or bully. If you don't like what your neighbour is doing, go petition the Congress for a law that forbids it. Letting people intimidate each other into submission is frankly such a huge step backward, it's just not worth it. It's a return to year 3000 BC. Especially if you like your liberty and fear government tyranny, I see no reason to bend over to the even more arbitrary rule of local thugs and bullies.

Re:Good on them.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't yet have the maturity to deal with these things.

Or at least that's what everyone thinks. Whether it is true or not is another question.

I don't claim to have been a complete adult at the time, but when I was twelve, I knew the difference between right and wrong. More to the point I knew where the line was between messing around with someone and seriously offending them. Sure I would crack a joke or two, but if someone came in with a gigantic pimple on their face, or was overweight, I knew that to make a joke out of that would seriously offend them and would forever reflect poorly on me.

One morning when I was about fourteen, someone began gleefully telling a group of us that so-and-so was with his girlfriend and had apparently suffered from erectile dysfunction. Even at the time I was dubious, but when you're fourteen, you simply assume that most people around you are having "sexual relations"(it was at about that time), so I considered it plausable that somehow this guy had got wind of an actual event. I told the guy flat out that it was completely unacceptable for him to be spreading those kinds of rumours. Not in a deadly serious way mind you. In the teen speak of the day my exact words were probably along the lines of; "You _can't_ be goin' around saying things like that. That's _not_ on. Etc, etc...".

It was early in the morning, and we could have been the first group he spoke to. I think my chastisement, such as it was, probably did stop the rumor from propagating. The incident came to mind recently when I read about just such a malicious rumor being spread about another teenager, only this time it was being done very publicly over the internet. It brought back the event and I thought about how much the victim could have been spared if just someone, not neccessarily anyone who knew him, had said to those spreading the rumors that, "It is unacceptable for you to do this."

I don't pretend to be anyone special, because I'm not. It's my firm opinion that all teenagers do have the ability to tell right from wrong. The hormones that make your pubic hair grow do not affect your ability to understand the effects of your actions. And there aren't very many people who have a genetic predisposition, or cognitive disorder, or whatever other pseudoscientific replacement for demonic possession is doing the rounds, that prevents them from telling right from wrong. There are however a lot of people who choose not to voice their opinion, to go with the flow and even to join in the spreading of such malicious rumors.

I hold that the vast, vast majority of teenagers, and adults, that participate in the spreading of rumors a) are mature enough to know what they are doing is wrong and b) consciously choose to ignore that fact. There's the myth of the hormone crazed teen, but that, like the teenager itself, is a recent invention, concocted to explain the unrest among people who are now (young)adults, but are still being treated like children. They're not children. They're not crazed. They're quite mature. They've got the maturity to understand all this. But do their guardians have the maturity to understand that?

Re:Good on them.

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Except any future employers, classmates or workmates who type their name into google ... And are you seriously telling me there isn't anyone who hasn't heard of the lightsaber kid?

Re:Good on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

Well schools are more like a daycare than a prison. The idea is to look after kids for the day, not to punish them for an infraction of the law. The kids might pick up an interesting fact or two during the day.

Re:Good on them.

[pairo]

From TFA: "Proposed changes to Ontario's Education Act announced Tuesday are designed to stop students from posting online attacks against other students or teachers".
If I say my classmate can't do maths, that's an attack. But it's not defamation if it's true.

Re:Good on them.

[freemywrld]

I don't think the issue is so much about needing to "completely shield" children from what they will face as adults, but part of gaining maturity and the ability to naviagate society as an adult is understanding that there are consequences for our actions. I think that is more what the aim here is. Kids, like, adults, need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that there are real-world consequences for things like harrassment.

Re:Good on them.

[Moraelin]

Laws usually aren't worded that vaguely. Noone ever passed a law fobidding something as vaguely defined as "attacks". If you've ever read a law or a contract, you'll notice that they're very verbose things, and go into painstaking detail as to what is included in that definition, what isn't, what are the situations when it doesn't apply, etc. You're not the only one who noticed that if something can be mis-interpreted, someone will deliberately mis-interpret it.

In other words, just because a dumbed down article is worded vaguely, doesn't mean that the law also will. The real law will likely go on and on like the energizer bunny, using a dozen paragraphs as to exactly what kinds of attacks are meant.

That, of course, doesn't mean that they'll get it exactly right. If you want to criticize exactly what they do define as attacks, by all means, please do. But going on a whole "auugh, they're taking away our liberties" panic just because an unrelated text uses a vague word, seems kinda unproductive.

Re:Good on them.

[jamesh]

Just for clarification, in places like the U.S., making insulting & deriding statements would be alright if the statements were true.

There are a few exceptions to this... if there was a dark skinned gentlemen born to unmarried parents who suffered from a mild intellectual disability, and I were to publicly refer to him (eg in a newspaper, tv show, or other public media) as a "black retarded bastard", I'm not sure that I'd get away with it, even though all the terms I used in the label were technically 'true' (as per their dictionary definition).

Not sure exactly what law I could be prosecuted under though... maybe it wouldn't be libel/slander, in which case your point still holds...

Re:Good on them.

[pairo]

Actually, they're not taking away my liberties, since I'm unlikely to ever be dragged (alive) into the US.

Re:Good on them.

[jamesh]

Excellent point. For anyone who disagrees, you've never seen a 3 year old burst into tears because someone called them a 'poo poo head'.

And further to this, just think about how these bullied kids grow up. The phrase 'Going Postal' springs to mind.

Re:Good on them.

[Moraelin]

Actually, if I'm to be pedantic, it would mean dragging you alive into Cananda, since that's where Ontario is :P

Re:Good on them.

[pairo]

Hm. Okay. May I just say I was stupid there? :-P For some reason I read Oblahblah, ah, must be Oklahoma. Duh.
Okay. Still, my point remains that there are rules to handle this, no need for amending the school rules for it... I bet the schools had rules against defamation in the first place...

Re:Good on them.

[bev_tech_rob]

----- Jesus F. Christ, not the "free speech" OCPD cases again. "Free speech" never included the right to libel and slander and verbally assault even for adults. Go to your neighbour and tell him "you're a cock-sucking faggot" once too often, and you'll find yourself called to court. ------


Or in this neck of the woods, you're more than likely to get your a** kicked or shot....

Re:Good on them.

[OneSmartFellow]

There is a legal definition of libel, and it does not include 'insulting' or 'deriding'. Rather it contains a relatively simple definition along the lines of "A false publication" and may include reference to damagae to reputation as a result of such false publication.

So, it is not usually enough to claim libel just from a false publication, you must also show loss of reputation.

In your case, insulting or deriding does not necessarily mean 'false', in which case a good judge should inform you that you really do have 'thin skin', and dismiss the case.

Re:Good on them.

[zantolak]

Yeah, but not many people become involuntary internet phenomenons on such a scale.

Re:Good on them.

[oliverthered]

How do you define attack? If some looked at me funny could I kill them?

Re:Good on them.

[themusicgod1]

"Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel."

I see nothing wrong with your situation. If people want to waste their money on a newspaper add(does anyone still read those rags anymore?), all the power to them. The newspapers sure as shit shouldn't keep them from publishing. The government has no business determining who gets to publish what(despite what the CRTC and ontario may think). There's absolutely nothing wrong with your scenario; free market, and freedom of expression in action. Hell it'd even be entertaining so even the newspapers would win out. Besides; since this is the information age, within moments of publishing there will be rebuttals posted online, and similarily degrading statements about the authors floated. Of course, that is to say, if anyone gives a fuck, but if not, then who cares?

Re:Good on them.

[QuoteMstr]

Not everything in poor taste ought to be illegal; that you can't think of something you'd be prosecuted under probably means that you couldn't be prosecuted for anything -- shunned, maybe, or rebuked. I don't think there's anything illegal about that statement. If we try to outlaw people becoming offended, then we'll have to also outlaw the kind of free expression that let us develop into what we are today.

Re:Good on them.

[daigu]

My argument is simple: The purpose of school is educating students, not policing them. Sure, 10 year olds are impacted by the behavior of others - bullies, abusive parents/siblings, gangs, and a whole host of other problems. These are not problems the school can solve nor should be trying to do so.

According to your argument, we would also have the school addressing these other problems to "maintain an environment conducive to learning". It's not feasible or appropriate, and it carries many negative implications that fundamentally undermine your intentions - good though they may be.

Re:Good on them.

[AmiAthena]

I can guarantee that if there were cell phone videos when I was in school, I could point you to a web page with a video of a truckload of boys throwing rocks at me as I walked home from school. Naturally, these were the big strong tough guys who thought it was amusing to pick on a little (5'3") girl. Maybe a video would have been what it took to get an adult to do something about it, but it would have made the rounds before anything action was taken, and I probably would have taken more abuse first because of it. I was told at the time that the school could not discipline students for anything not taking place on school grounds, which is kinda funny since they had a policy suspending kids from sports if they got caught at a party with alcohol. (They didn't have to be drinking, just in the same building as the alcohol.) Nobody offered to call the cops, or suggested that I file a police report. Nobody's parents were called. I wasn't offered counseling. Nothing happened. This was in a "good" school district in a small "progressive" town. I suspect that they thought that I couldn't possibly be having problems with anyone since there weren't even any minorities in our lovely little town to cause trouble. *Their views, not mine! *

Not only did the adults never do anything, they participated in the emotional bullying. I recall one incident where a female friend had suffered a loss and I was taking her to the school pshychologist. As we sat in the front office waiting, I was hugging her and doing the supportive friend thing, and one of the office ladies made some remark to another office lady about us being lesbians, which we heard. When we complained to the principal, we were basically told he couldn't do anything about it since he didn't hear it. So I don't know why I thought they'd care about the damn stoning.

I applaud the effort to have some repercussions for *any* type of predatory behavior. I only hope they don't zero-tolerance policy the thing into persecution. I know TFA said they're taking out the ZTP, but sadly I see this potentially devolving into kids getting suspended for posting something on Myspace like "Jenny's a bitch she stole my boyfriend," or "I hate Mr. Smith, he's such a tool."


As far as just "getting over it," or developing a "thick skin" from it, as someone mentioned, I'll say this: My skin might be thicker for the experience, but it's scar tissue.

Re:Good on them.

[Twylite]

...and realize that there are real-world consequences for things like harrassment.

Yes ... I learned that by appealing to an external authority for enforcement you ostracise yourself from your peer group. I learned that without an external authority you are helpless in the face of aggression. I learned that adults are poor judges who make no distinction between aggression, defense and retaliation. I learned that you can't prove who started it -- it doesn't matter who started it -- and that the victim will suffer the same punishment as the aggressor.

Re:Good on them.

[SCHecklerX]

Most of the people I would classify as nerds in my HS were not actually very smart (they thought they were though), spending more of their time playing games, writing fantasy stories, doodling pictures, than paying attention to the task at hand (my own addiction was hacking assembler code, but I did not do it to the exclusion of all else). Many of the smartest folks in the school were active in sports and such. Being well-rounded is important in any part of your life. If you dress like a slob, and don't socialize, and then talk to people like you think you are smarter than they are, well, is it any wonder that nobody likes you but others who act the same way? Being somewhat nerdy myself I did have friends from both camps. I guess the difference was that I tried a little bit of many things rather than shut myself off from the rest of the world.

Re:Good on them.

[voice_of_all_reason]

Free speech doesn't mean that it's okay to commit purposeful acts of cruelty towards other people.

Actually, that's exactly what it means, as long as those acts are committed via speech. Otherwise you beleive in somewhat-free speech.

Re:Good on them.

[voice_of_all_reason]

"Free speech" never included the right to libel and slander and verbally assault even for adults.

It most certainly did. Very clearly and in simple words. "Shall pass no law." Libel and slander laws are unconstitutional, it's just that most people don't mind.

"Free speech" is defined strictly in your relation to Congress. No, really, go actually read that ammendment some day.

Yes it did, until the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause required the states to abide by any limits set on the federal government. This is why none of the states can have slavery any more.

Re:Good on them.

[JKConsult]

The truth is an absolute defense to all torts of this kind except public dissemination of private information. The exception for the latter lies in the situation where the dissemination serves a public interest. The example in the case law that I studied was a woman at a nuclear power plant who collapsed at work. She was rushed to the hospital, and one of her supervisors went to her room, and slyly read her chart, finding she had collapsed from complications from a hysterectomy. He told the other workers at the plant, who were worried about radiation, what had happened. Now, he lost, but that was because he read her chart. If she had told him herself, and said "This is secret", he would have been justified in telling the others.

Re:Good on them.

[blahplusplus]

"Yes. Having a thick skin is the price of living in a free society... but for adults, not for children."

A "free society" full of barbarians isn't necessarily a healthy society, the fact that you mention needing thick skin shows how barbaric human beings still are.

I still think you vastly underestimate how influenced people are by bullying as adults as well, indeed intimidation and idealogical force in market society is just as virulent and torturous anything a teenager can cookup. Your comments about adults being able to 'brush it off easier' is a bordering on nonsensical, there is no universal maturity demarcation for people. Most adults simply supress their true feelings and vent to their friends behind closed doors or on the internet. If you know any women, you should know just how much they talk shit about people to their friends and social circle, the shit that comes out of peoples (adults and teens, everyone basically) when they are in their social circle is just as venomous. The internet is a great place to see what "adults" are *really* like on the inside: Children themselves most of the time.

People mature at incredibly different rates and not all at the same time. Even the concept "maturity" we could debate for hours on end if adults are truly "mature" with all the shit they load their kids with, along with being idealogical and social cowards most of them.

Re:Good on them.

[geekoid]

You8 would loose your job, but no one would be able to criminally punish you and no law suit would be successfull. Just a bunch of anti american assholes would stir the media up so there face will be on the news.

Re:Good on them.

[geekoid]

" I don't really care if people say mean things about me.."
you would if it costs you a promotion, or a job, or a home loan, or ...

Re:Good on them.

[Hatta]

As someone wiser than me has pointed out, having to "grow a thick skin" shouldn't be the price of living in an information-based society.

Why not? When the alternative is a lack of free speech, growing a thick skin is not that bad.

Re:Good on them.

[Hatta]

Agreed. To illistrate the point: let's pretend that my daughter's class pools their money and takes out a full-page add in the local newspaper making insulting & deriding one of their classmates, a teacher, or the principal. Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel. /me raises his hand.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel. When a student speaks out against a figure that holds authority over them, it is political speech and protected by the first amendment. If I can call Bush retarded and incompetent, a student should certainly have the same right to say the same thing about an administrator.

Re:Good on them.

[mdwh2]

Well, there's other issues such as harrassment.

But just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be accepted in school - the same applies even for adults in workplaces.

Yes, someone should be legally free to say what they like, but if someone was harrassing or insulting a work colleague, I would expect the company (or school) to do something about it.

And yes - even if that happened outside of work time, if someone was staking and harrassing fellow employees, I wouldn't think it necessarily unreasonable for the company to take an interest.

Re:Good on them.

[slughead]

"Information-based society" is a cop-out. It's still libel, and it's about bloody time the law started CATCHING UP to the "information-based" society. I don't give a damn about the technology that is or is not involved - People still should be held responsible for their actions.

While TFA is referring simply to school kids, I hope your statement has similar constraints. Children are one thing, but 18 year olds have rights--or, at least, they should.

Harassment law in this country has gotten way out of hand. (please note I realize TFA was about canada, I'm talking about the US anyway)

The problem with the government trying to shield everyone from everything is that they are at the mercy of bullies (of all types) when the government isn't around. There's also the issue of the bully's rights--they should have the RIGHT to put up a website or newspaper ad stating "so and so is ghey huhehe". Hell, Alex Hamilton posted disparaging rants in the newspapers of his day about all kinds of people.

I think this shielding issue is introducing a whole new generation of kids with terrible character flaws. Unable to deal with things on their own, at age 18 they are totally oblivious to the world around them, and require grounding. This is why the Peace Corps have record membership right now--kids who have been under-exposed to the world around them realize their lacking in character and wish to fix themselves.

Wrapping every bully on the knuckles and trying to make everyone into milk toast hurts not only the bullies but the bullied. How do you know you're weak if you've never been tested? How do you rise above things that you don't know are there?

Re:Good on them.

[loconet]

We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying

Are you sure about that?

Re:Good on them.

[zotz]

"I suppose the classic distinction between free speech and libel is that the former is in a transient medium, while the latter is mass-distributed and accessible for the long term."

Are you sure you get this?

Check:

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander /defamation_character.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

all the best,

drew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
  A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.

Re:Good on them.

[compro01]

It most certainly did. Very clearly and in simple words. "Shall pass no law." Libel and slander laws are unconstitutional, it's just that most people don't mind.

up here, in Canada, where this is happening, it is perfectly constitutional, under section 1 of our constitution, the "Reasonable Limitations" statute.

and personally, i agree with this law. it is functionally equivalent to workplace harassment laws. this is just allowing the school to deal with it, keeping matters at the lowest level possible, which is a good thing.

Re:Good on them.

[maztuhblastah]

We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying. But a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't yet have the maturity to deal with these things.

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.

Part of the reason that a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't have that maturity is that, due to laws like this, and arguments like yours, they're never given a chance to develop it themselves until they reach college-age. In the 50's, nobody would have to said that a teenager "didn't have the maturity" to deal with someone making fun of him in front of his peers (and that's all "cyber-bullying" is.)

Maybe the solution to our children's development problems is just to... you know.... let them develop, and stop treating them like babies until they're 16.

Re:Good on them.

[budgenator]

Why the state does it, what else would you call the sex offender's registry? Even better is when some pervert list your address as his/hers, or when the nut-jobs fire-bomb the wrong address.

Re:Good on them.

[Workaphobia]

I know him as "Star Wars Kid", and mentioned him explicitly as an example. Lawsuit. Pure and simple. There should be no law specifically targetting what they did, let emotional distress cover it.

Re:Good on them.

[budgenator]

Well at least the Canadians are throwing out the concept of "zero tollerance" which implies that those immature adults are now required to think when disciplining the students rather than blindly following a one-size-fits-all approach

Re:Good on them.

[Irish_Samurai]

Why is this a troll? Bullies choose victims, not easy targets.

Standing up for yourself works. You may get beat up, perhaps repeatedly while you defend yourself, but eventually the bully stops.

Bullies will never be removed from your existence, learning how to deal with them is a survival skill.

Now, there is another problem to be dealt with. Can you tell the difference between a bully and a sociopath with narcissistic tendencies? A bully will capitulate when the reward for picking on you becomes less than the effort put into it.

A narcissistic sociopath will continue to beat on you harder and harder until you recognize the level of superiority that exists in their head.

Re:Good on them.

[Workaphobia]

The last time I had a discussion on slander/libel, last week I think it was, someone linked to a similar wikipedia article. I mildly resent this because you are implying that I know next to nothing of the matter, but you have not demonstrated that you understand any more than me. So next time please include some summary of your point. It doesn't mean anything if you just link to a google search or encyclopedia entry and say "Come back after the required reading."

I am not a lawyer. I have read (parts of) the libel article, and don't feel up to getting lost in thousands of wiki tabs at the moment (I should be doing a lab right now, not debating free speech ;) ). Moreover, I'm not arguing how the legal system *currently* treats libel and slander, I'm arguing how I feel it *should*.

The point I was trying to make in my above post is that I seem to be free to defame people as much as I like so long as it's verbally and not too widespread. There's no law that I can't call my neighbor a douchebag around my friends - even to his face. There's no law that says I have to back up my claim (especially such a subjective one) with hard evidence or even an irrational rant. I think that it is possibly hypocritical to allow this in the physical world but not in the electronic one. Furthermore, it could represent a gradual retraction of free speech as more and more communications do become electronic.

So my statement that there is a line between free speech and libel is a concession that not all electronic communications are analogous to personal conversations held in a public place. I attempt to define this distinction not in legal terms but based on the reasons behind the laws. Conversations that are not part of a permanent record and not widely distributed do not impact reputation nearly as much as publications. The question is how do we redefine the technical rules to make sense morally and practically.

Sorry if I jumbled any of my thoughts. Back to this lab.

Re:Good on them.

[mandelbr0t]

As far as just "getting over it," or developing a "thick skin" from it, as someone mentioned, I'll say this: My skin might be thicker for the experience, but it's scar tissue. Thanks for your experience. Bullying affects people for the rest of their life, but so many people turn the other way and wait for their chance to blame the victim. Usually this takes the form of suicide or jail time many years later. Children should not be born into such humilating roles, let alone forced to accept them.

Re:Good on them.

[zotz]

I posted another link before the wikipedia one, it is just a few sentences long. Did you check it?

To sum things up.

There is defamation. You can break it down into slander and libel. Slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation. Both slander and libel are actionable.

So, no, you can't slander someone and call it free speech and get away with it if they follow up. I am not a lawyer either so that is why I made my post as a question in case you knew something the articles did not mention.

I may indeed not know more than you, but you seemed to be leaving slander out of the equation and only talking free speech and libel. It seems slander is the verbal form of defamation and is not protected by free speech. Do you know different?

Now to go on with this last post, perhaps slander has higher standards than libel, I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere. This is basically what you are saying is it not? (If I get you right here.)

BTW, I was trying to be helpful not trying to make a dig. You may have read too much into my post.

all the best,

drew

Re:Good on them.

[SpeedyDX]

Um ... I don't know about the States, but the schools up here in Ontario do address those issues, though only to a very shallow extent. Schools here educate children on bullies, abusive family members, gang involvement, drugs, etc, etc, and encourage children/teens to speak to a guidance counsellor if they are being harassed at home or elsewhere. The schools don't actively intervene unless the child comes forward, but there is SOME effort to reach out to those kids.

I don't see how it is inappropriate to encourage kids to speak up if something is terribly wrong in the family. I would think that it would be worse if the kids don't say/do anything at all.

Re:Good on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no overt empathy in a situation where everyone plays their roles to a letter. It's easier to show the world that cold shell; in these situations I try to do whatever is easiest for everybody. Sometimes that can mean being a huge asshole - but it's the situation. "I don't like fucking swearing but you're fucking making me do it," right? Be intransigently polite if it helps, or tell people to contain their ignorance, or just to fuck the fuck off and eat shit.

Actually, I've always been all to eager to step on other people for any slight. *shrug* Ripping on people is fun, and in our DNA, I think.

Re:Good on them.

[Gorshkov]

There's also the issue of the bully's rights--they should have the RIGHT to put up a website or newspaper ad stating "so and so is ghey huhehe".

No rights exist, anywhere, without responsibility ..... didn't you lot south of the 49th fight a war against England on a variation of that theme?

Hell, Alex Hamilton posted disparaging rants in the newspapers of his day about all kinds of people.

And if he did the same thing today, he would - quite rightfully - wind up in court.

Signing the Declaration of Independence makes him one of your founding fathers - it doesn't make him a God.

Re:Good on them.

[Workaphobia]

Then I think I did indeed ignore slander. But I don't think it affects my point too much. Internet communications, even if technically public, can still be intended for a private audience, and should not necessarily be subject to the same rules as print publications.

Sorry if I overreacted, I was just tired of the link dropping that started with the last guy I had this discussion with.

Re:Good on them.

[daigu]

...do address those issues, though only to a very shallow extent...

Exactly - because it isn't their function. Unfortunately, schools have to provide some basic social services in order to educate children. However, it is appropriate that they refer people elsewhere when the problems extend beyond that scope - which is most of them.

It is one thing to get children to "speak up" about the problems they face. It is quite another to think schools can solve those problems or that they should be centers for social, police or other services rather than of education.

Re:Good on them.

[xantho]

Do you think that "most" means the same thing as "all"? Just because you have one anecdotal data point doesn't mean that most people aren't actually able to brush off insults as adults.

Great.

[normuser]

Just what we need. Another bullshit "internet law".
Does enyone else remember when we had that great internet completely void of government?
I wish there was a way to bring that back.

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

So do I. At my old school, "The Academy for Gifted Children," they already have draconian rules like this (it's a private school). One kid has gotten expelled (/possibly/ suspended- still same idea) because he created a Wikipedia entry about another student.

It gets worse- another student broke the glass on a vending machine when his chips got stuck. His friend took a video and posted it onto youtube (yes it was hilarious). The principal of the school threatened to *SUE* the kid who posted the video...I'm not sure what grounds she would have, if any, but just the threat of litigation is usually enough nowadays- nobody wants to get entrenched in a legal battle (although it would be terrible PR for the school).

I really miss the days when the Internet was our last bastion of free speech, but like all forms of media (newspapers, TV, etc.), everything gets dumbed down and starts to generally suck when it becomes mainstream.

Re:Great.

[PTBarnum]

No, I don't remember any time when the Internet was void of government. It was created by the government, then government interest waned for a while as commercial interests increased, but the government and government institutions (including public universities and their faculty) were still very much involved with it.

So what period of time are you thinking of when government money wasn't at least a significant minority of the support for the net? When government supported researchers weren't a significant part of the governing bodies of the net?

Re:Great.

[normuser]

My comment had nothing to do with the us governments role in the internets creation.
What I was talking about was the fact that untill recently the internet was "free". The one place you could do or say whatever you want. there was no governing body and local laws were not enforced.

-normuser

Re:Great.

[brumby]

Does enyone else remember when we had that great internet completely void of government?

It was also devoid of the average person. A former co-worker used to say, before the September than never ended, "When the Internet becomes representative of the general population, I'm getting off."

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is an entity of and to itself, and can have no more blame than the physical weapon used to harm or kill someone. Therefore, this is not another "bullshit 'internet law'", as you claim, it is merely an extension of current law that says I don't have the right to beat the shit out of you without facing my actions legally. The Internet was a cool place back when it was uncool to be on it. Those days are gone, but at least Slashdot is still here. As far as your comment regarding Government, name a time in our US history where we have been "completely void of government"? Yes, I thought so. The "necessary evil" lives on.

Re:Great.

[Chris whatever]

Well you can always create your own website and surf in it and do and say whatever you want to yourself and post videos .

In the beginning people were awed by the internet(let's say around 1990 for the WWW) so they were not thinking about bitching and piracy and such, nowadays it's become just another tool for the younger generation and it's not sacred anymore, anything goes from the supreme good to the most vile stuff, why must we have the vile stuff that actually amounts to nothing good

Too many bad things are there and even though you want to protect FREEDOM at any cost whatever is being done in the name of freedom of speech is your business but as adults and responsible government, it's their duty to protect the innocent or legally underage kids from harming each other.

If you believe in ying and yang then we need a balance somewhere but balance comes with understanding and teaching which at the present moment nonexistent.

People must be held responsible at any cost for their actions being good or bad and that includes the internet as well.

Again you can always look into a mirror and bitch, but i'm guessing it wont make you feel more FREE, it will only make you look rather stuupid.

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much before they started anouncing that they were spying on you. When the only thing you had to worry abouy was not exporting encryption over a certain amount. Though it seems even then we were just being decieved. I wish they weren't.

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

What planet were you from? Do you just have selective memory? I don't ever remember the internet being 100% free.

My thoughts

[Antony-Kyre]

Not sure about Canadian law, but here's my view on this matter.

Can a school legally (or morally) get away with punishing a student for an action committed outside of school grounds if the action isn't illegal in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to seek legal action and then the school take action based on whether there is a conviction or not?

Has anyone ever heard of a restraining order up there in Canada?

Re:My thoughts

[Turn-X Alphonse]

You know a common form of "cyber-bullying" is to use a camera phone to take a picture of a girl undressing before Gym/P.E. Class and then put it up on a website. The bullying is commited outside school but would effect someones in-school life majorly.

Should the school go "not our problem, we say no phones allowed" or attempt to control this problem with a 2 pronged assault?

Re:My thoughts

[Antony-Kyre]

This sounds harsh, but I would suggest contacting the police and pressing charges. I don't care if someone is a juvenile, this type of stuff doesn't need to be tolerated and needs to be dealt with.

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it becomes a legal issue, not an academic disciplinary issue. What you described is already illegal.

Re:My thoughts

[rborek]

Yes, you can. Even if the action isn't illegal per se, it could result in a hostile school environment or bring discredit to the school. The high school I went to made the controversial decision to suspend a student based on the fact that he was working as a male stripper (this was in Ontario, when there was an OAC year (basically Grade 13), and the student was 18), as it was a Catholic high school and would bring the school into disrepute. Suffice it to say the suspension caused even more attention to be drawn to the school and the guy involved.

The university I attended had a student code of conduct that applied whether you were on or off campus. It has been used in recent years to suspend students involved in off-campus altercations and other various illegal activites, though it could be used for non-illegal activites as well. It was introduced after a riot started on a street near the university, in which the police had to appear in full riot gear and use tear gas and the like to control the crowd.

Restraining orders are good, but they are more cumbersome and have essentially the same effect (if a bully can't get within 300m of you at school, he is effectively suspended from school). The courts should be a last resort - there's no need to tie them up with issues that can be dealt using alternate methods.

Re:My thoughts

[Frogbert]

Well that is only one way of thinking about it. I'd prefer, if I was a parent, to have bullying cases handled in schools. While I don't dismiss bullying is a serious problem, I think it is better to have it handled by teachers and parents before dragging the police into it.

What if your son was bullying another child? Chances are they have picked on other students before. Would you want the police called? Or would you prefer to be informed by teachers so you could discipline your child?

I think it's safe to say the vast majority of people have "bullied" another person in the past, I look back at how I was as a kid and I'm disgusted at some of the things I did. Children are cruel, susceptible to peer pressure and will get into fights.

Obviously there are always going to be exceptions to the rule, people that cross the line and parents that just don't care. In this case the police should be involved, but the vast majority of the time I believe it would be much more effective to have parents sort their children out rather then police.

Just my two cents.

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Schools are part of government
government imposes sanctions

for example, a school could enforce a restraining order between students, expelling a student or forcing them to change schools for behaviour outside the school.

think of this merely being an extension of that: empowering schools to provide an appropriate punishment for an action that is deemed objectionable.

would you rather police and juvenile detention instead?

Re:My thoughts

[Antony-Kyre]

What I'm concerned about is whether a student will receive due process for a "wrongful" action, rather than just for a moral action.

Religious (and possibly private) schools, if outlined in their school rules, can impose restrictions based on immorality if they so choose. However, for other schools (e.g. public), if it is not illegal, and if it is not harmful to the learning process, no harm, no foul.

In the event of bullying, sure, the parents and students need to sit down and work this issue out with someone from the school moderating it. However, to go as far as suspending or expelling a student would be unfair without some sort of due process, whatever that may be, to prove that the student is violating another student's rights.

In any event, if someone is suspended from school, for non-violation of the rules (basically, the school simply didn't like the actions of the student, and it was not illegal), the school risks a lawsuit.

Most importantly, I think I need mroe details about what Ontario is proposing before I jump (posting) in next time.

Re:My thoughts

[zantolak]

There's a good chance that would fall under child pornography laws anyway, and thus be legally actionable.

Re:My thoughts

[jez9999]

Doesn't sound harsh at all. Posting lude pics of someone on the net without their permission should definitely be punished by law, I agree.

Re:My thoughts

[Antony-Kyre]

If the judicial system cannot take action against someone, why should the school? Action as in suspension or expulsion.

Posting lewd pictures of someone.
Defaming someone by posting false information about them.
Posting on one's message board that one is going to take a baseball bat to their head next time you see them.

All of these I believe are legal issues, and if it is a legal issue, I see no reason why a school cannot get involved. In my opinion, I would prefer a school to take the following steps.

Suspend the student, but permit the student to continue doing the work necessary for classes.
If charges are pressed, wait until the trial is over before expelling the student.
If charges are not pressed, then assume that it is not a serious issue.
Allow mediation between the parents and students as an alternative option, where they work out their differences, with both sides agreeing to whatever results in the mediation.

Re:My thoughts

[Ed Avis]

Come on! You would like to drag the full weight of the legal system into every school dispute?

School is a place where children go to learn. Children are not adults, they don't behave like adults and they don't have the same rights as adults. If they misbehave, the teacher has authority to punish them. Now, that authority does not always extend outside the school property but it's crazy to say that only criminal offences, or only actions serious enough to merit a civil lawsuit or restraining order, should be punishable. For less serious things it's only right for the school to sort things out itself. The legal system is not there as a substitute for common sense.

I know it sucks to be unfairly punished for things that aren't directly related to your studies or school - it happened to me - but this is a far lesser evil than tying teachers up in red tape and saying they must hire lawyers to deal with any cases of of bullying that happen outside school grounds.

Re:My thoughts

[EvilGrin666]

Fair enough, the schools and the staff have a 'duty of care' when pupils are onsite and/or within school hours. Beyond that it's not the schools problem. Additionally, over here in the UK there are significant legal bear traps for any school wishing to make it so. Namely the Human Rights Act.

Re:My thoughts

[jedidiah]

Once it leaves the school, it is no longer a school dispute. If someone gets maimed (physically or electronically) outside of school and outside of school hours then it is infact the domain of the courts to deal with.

This is just the schools (and the Canadian NEA) trying to expand their control and influence.

Re:My thoughts

[MrEd]

Go Queen's!

(am I right?)

Re:My thoughts

[Reziac]

Expulsion certainly doesn't teach kids anything. It just gives them a lot of free time to become worse punks than they were to start with.

Trouble is, it's now politically incorrect to suggest smacking the little bastards into shape. Funny how in the schools I went to, where you WOULD get paddled for being an ass or a bully, bullying and hazing were almost unknown, and expulsions were vanishingly rare (required actual and repeated criminal behaviour in the school venue).

Parents no longer set boundaries; schools are afraid to enforce boundaries; kids ALWAYS push the limits until they hit a hard boundary on their behaviour, that's just normal kid stuff. Since boundaries no longer exist or are no longer enforced, kids push a lot further than they used to. And then schools overreact in their fervor to protect ...er, mostly themselves from liability lawsuits.

Crap, now I don't remember where I'd intended to take this :)

Re:My thoughts

[Ed Avis]

'maimed physically', yes - but a personal online attack is not normally a matter for the courts. If it were aimed at an adult, you'd just say let them deal with it, or if they are really concerned hire a lawyer. These options don't apply for children, because they are more vulnerable to bullying than adults are (online or otherwise), and they cannot afford lawyers.

One twelve-year old making a nasty MySpace page about another twelve-year old is not a matter for the courts to deal with. De minimis non curat lex. However, it may be hurtful to the victim and disruptive to school learning. The schools can sort it out.

Re:My thoughts

[compro01]

Can a school legally (or morally) get away with punishing a student for an action committed outside of school grounds if the action isn't illegal in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to seek legal action and then the school take action based on whether there is a conviction or not?

i belive that they're trying to deal with things at the lowest level possible and not screw someones life with criminal charges.

and i'm pretty sure said acts are illegal in the adult world, under libel/slander laws and labour laws (workplace harrasment).

Re:My thoughts

[Breakfast Pants]

I don't think any one other than you is talking about private schools.

Re:My thoughts

[Antony-Kyre]

Children do have the same rights as adults. To treat them any differently would be wrong.

It really depends what the MySpace page is. Is it an impersonation of the other person, in the sense that it is claming to be the other person in an attempt to defame him or her? I think that could be a matter for the courts, but I don't know which specific law is being broken, but it would be a civil (lawsuit) issue nonetheless. Libel is not legal.

Re:My thoughts

[jedidiah]

Children have these creatures that are supposed to look out for them and if really concerned hire a lawyer.

They are typically called parents.

These are the same people that would take the kid to the ER if it were a physical beating. These are the same people that would press charges with the police if it were a physical beating.

The Law & Order apparatus is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with this if any.

Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Op911]

This sounds like trouble. Who judges what is cyberbullying and what is just being a troll? Much as we may like to see people modded down for making assinine comments or denigrating statements to others, I hardly think that this would be enough cause for someone to be suspended or expelled from school. I see this as having huge potential for abuse, and having little to no potential to actually help make schools safer. This is stupid knee-jerk stuff.

If people actually are documented attacking others on video or in a picture, then they deserve to be charged with assault and dealt with accordingly.

A specific statement regarding "cyberbullying" potentially could trample om free speech.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[melikamp]

Cyber-bullying is just another word they made up. What they are trying to control and eliminate is the free expression and the will to learn outside of the school. It is not enough that students are prohibited from expressing their ideas and desires (to learn some things rather than others) during the lesson; not enough that they are detained for openly confronting and criticizing a teacher at school, regardless of how fair the criticism is. It is not enough because, apparently (gasp) students are discovering that the Web is a place where they can learn things on their own, things that they are passionate about, and also a place where their opinions are not getting squashed by the authority.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Much as we may like to see people modded down for making assinine comments or denigrating statements to others, I hardly think that this would be enough cause for someone to be suspended or expelled from school.

Being called a "faggot" and "cocksucker" every day at school, and I do mean every single day, and being pretty emotionally sensitive at the time, just about drove me to suicide. The cops couldn't do anything about the physical bullying that accompanied it either, the kid was below 12, immunity from prosecution (Canada). There was only one public school in the town (Schreiber, Ontario) and the kid came from what was essentially another broken, native home, with alcoholic parents and tons of neglect. I was a bit of a prodigy, from a stable family. He was jealous.

I got through it by moving schools a lot. I can deal with this shit now, but back then, as a child, I couldn't.

I would have preferred to see the instigator being forced to move 200km away to change schools instead of me. I support this law.

Anonymous for obvious reasons.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[melikamp]

GP is talking specifically about the cyber-bullying, which is almost an oxymoron (because you certainly do not have to visit a myspace page where you are being slandered). Is that the part of the law you are supporting?

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[asninn]

Huh? Are you seriously trying to equate bullying (which, in itself, is an act that's defined by its intention and the intended effect on the victim, not by whether it's taking place "offline" or "online" or whether it takes any specific form) with students "learn[ing] things on their own, things that they are passionate about"?

Get a fucking grip.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[GreatBunzinni]

Cyber-bullying is just another word they made up. What they are trying to control and eliminate is the free expression and the will to learn outside of the school.

It is unthinkable that any student will be prosecuted for learning outside of the school. In fact, that accusation is too retarded even to take into account. Do you really believe that setting up sites dedicated to accusing student A or teacher B of, for example, being gay is some sort of valuable learning experience? Do you really believe that the schoolboard would prosecute the student who created such a site not because of it's content but because the student learned HTML and/or CSS? Obviously not.

As it is easy to see, this move has nothing to do with "controlling the will to learn outside of the school". It's objective is to not let a few rotten students jeopardise the school climate. If a student dedicates his time to denigrate and smear the reputation of his fellow students and/or teachers, why shouldn't he be called upon his actions? Why would the school tolerate such destructive behaviour, pretend that there isn't anything wrong with it and carry on?

You talk about freedom of expression but you sure are forgetting that freedom of expression also involves accountability for your own actions. If a student spends his time trying to humiliate any of his peers or teachers he sure is asking to get himself into trouble. And he should be, too.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[melikamp]

My point is that there is no such thing as "cyber-bullying". The educators' motives stem from their desire to prohibit free expression, even though they might say that the purpose of the law is to protect the children.

Seriously, what exactly is "cyber-bullying"? Does it involve tying up and taping eyelids to make one read a slanderous comment? As Zorak would put it, Where is the violence? Where is the bloodspray? Can you really call it "bullying" if it has no violent side to it? Beating up is bullying. Chasing down the hall and calling names is bullying. Vandalizing a locker, smearing glue on the seat... bullying. Posting something on your god-forsaken myspace page? Who cares?

And besides, what does "bullying" have to do with comments about teachers and principals?

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Alioth]

Oh for heaven's sake, some jerk taunting other school students or teachers has NOTHING to do with learning. Get a grip. If they want to criticise teachers, they can do it in a polite and reasoned manner.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[melikamp]

It is unthinkable that any student will be prosecuted for learning outside of the school. In fact, that accusation is too retarded even to take into account.

Really? Last time I checked, the schools discredit all such education. If you do not believe me, try to get anywhere in life without official certificates.

It's objective is to not let a few rotten students jeopardise the school climate. If a student dedicates his time to denigrate and smear the reputation of his fellow students and/or teachers, why shouldn't he be called upon his actions? Why would the school tolerate such destructive behaviour, pretend that there isn't anything wrong with it and carry on?

He should not be called upon his actions because, as you are well aware, generally, nobody gives a damn about what some dude says on his private Web page. Those who want to see it -- see it, and those who do not are not forced to visit it, ever. If that is a gibberish of the type "my principal is a monkey", then one must be insane to take offence. If that is a libel: "my principal raped me", then we have courts for that. If that is a fair criticism: "my principal verbally abused students on many occasions", then... that is what they are after. They do not want students to behave like responsible adults.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[melikamp]

I've been in school (both in Russia and in USA) for the past... mmm... 20 years. I can may be think of two or three teachers who would sometimes stir the lesson in the direction that the students wanted. Those are exceptional examples. I can think of a couple who were so modest as to accept criticism during the class. All of these examples are confined to the university. I cannot think of a single grade school teacher who would not have flipped at the first sign of a student expressesing himself freely.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Dhalka226]

Last time I checked, the schools discredit all such education. If you do not believe me, try to get anywhere in life without official certificates.

Schools do not determine where you get in life. If you can't get anywhere without official education--and I agree that in many cases that is true--it is because of businesses trying to save a buck or lazy HR departments. It is significantly easier to say "Requires CS degree" or something similar than to sit down any applicant who says they have the experience but not the schooling and actually test them. Likewise, it is easier to assume that somebody who has completed your required degree path has the ability and dedication to adapt and learn new materials. Determining that from somebody whose resume essentially says "trust me" is going to be costly. There are counterexamples on all sides, but in general this holds true.

Also, as a job applicant gets older, what matters the most on his resume, to most organizations, is previous work experience--not education. I guess as long as you can slip by once or twice this supposed stranglehold on success held by the schools loosens up?

They do not want students to behave like responsible adults.

Children are not responsible adults, that is why we call them children. But no, I would argue the direct opposite: They DO want them to act more like responsible adults. That means not picking on other students, or randomly calling people names. It means not libeling others, and contrary to your implication most courts would not take a 12 year old being sued for libel very seriously, even if that is exactly what it is. (Besides which, it is his parents who would be liable--which isn't particularly fair to them.) It means not threatening people with physical violence. The fact that many adults even engage in these behaviors doesn't make them any less inappropriate.

If you want to argue about whether or not this sort of thing is effective, so be it. If you want to argue whether it is appropriate for the schools rather than parents to be enforcing codes of conduct outside of their walls, so be it. If you want to argue that some oversensitive teachers and principles are going to misuse rules like this, so be it. But your little "ZOMG THE SCHOOLS ARE HOLDING ME DOWN~!" conspiracy theory goes entirely too far.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[GreatBunzinni]

Really? Last time I checked, the schools discredit all such education. If you do not believe me, try to get anywhere in life without official certificates.

That is a very dumb statement to make. First of all, the reason why you don't "get anywhere" with your self taught bag of tricks is not because of any school discrediting it. There isn't a single school in the world who would spend a second of it's time to try to stop you from applying for a job based on your self taught bag of tricks. The reason why you do not "get anywhere" without any official certificates is that the people who you are trying to get a job from do not believe that your self-taught bag of tricks offers them any assurance. To put it in other words, you "don't get anywhere" because you do not offer any employer an assurance that you know how to do your job.

There are plenty of people on the world who are hired based on their "non-certified" expertise. They are hired because they demonstrate that they can do their job better than any competing professional, including "certified" professionals. Yet, no school is involved there too. Therefore there goes your conspiracy theory.

He should not be called upon his actions because, as you are well aware, generally, nobody gives a damn about what some dude says on his private Web page.

As you may understand, each and every legal action is taken by those who in fact "give a damn". With this legislation, if a Canadian school "gives a damn" about what a student is writing about it, whether it is about some fellow student or a teacher, then that school will be able to deal directly with the student.

If that is a gibberish of the type "my principal is a monkey", then one must be insane to take offence. If that is a libel: "my principal raped me", then we have courts for that. If that is a fair criticism: "my principal verbally abused students on many occasions", then... that is what they are after. They do not want students to behave like responsible adults.

Every school has the obligation to implement and maintain a healthy learning environment. As it is easy to see, if a student's actions are directly affecting the school's learning environment, whether those actions are targeted at teachers or fellow students, then the school should have the right to protect itself from it and the tools to use in that situation. If some smart ass student thinks that assaulting his colleagues, teachers or even school is a reasonable thing to do then why should any school tolerate it? Should a school simply "turn the other cheek" and accept that student with open arms eventhough he is continuously F'ing them up the A?

And as you stated, the school can also sue the bully or even setting up criminal charges. Yet, shouldn't it be simpler if the school could simply expell that student? There wouldn't be a lengthy and expensive court process and justice would be served. If the bully believes that the charges were unwarranted then he may sue. It's a win-win. On the other hand, as even you may understand, eventhough a school is suing a student, at the moment no one can stop that particular student from attending class or even from entering school grounds. What good will a expensive lawsuit do if the bullies could still freely do their own bidding with impunity?

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[atezun]

Posting something on your god-forsaken myspace page? Who cares?

Kids care. For some of them that myspace page may be one of the few things places they can say, this is mine, this is a part of me. What happens when someone takes a swipe into their sanctuary? They feel violated and rightly so. You can argue as long as you want about it having no bearing in the "real" world. Kids don't live in the "real" world. They live in a mostly closed-off static society which mostly consists of their school and extra-curriculars. You can't just go somewhere else as a kid.

My dad was a principal until he retired several years ago but is still involved in education and have spent most of my life seeing the "other side" of schools. I don't get this whole the teachers are trying to silence the children angle. I'd be lying if I said all of them but there's still a good majority of teachers who have their students interests at heart in their decisions. Can they be misguided from time to time. Anyone can. Do I think they are in this case? No.

As kids we live on an island. If someone wants to make your life miserable on that island you don't have much choice in the matter. Sometimes as a teacher the only course you have is to boot someone from the island.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[rmstar]

you certainly do not have to visit a myspace page where you are being slandered

No, you don't. But others do visit those pages, and this has effects on real life. And cyber-bullying is often more than just writing "foo is an asshole". It involves posting embarrassing and exposing pictures, movie clips, and gossip.

Besides, it is irrelevant wether you, melikamp, think that this is not important. The victims of cyber-bullying do feel very distressed, and do so in practically every case. To them it is important, and this is what matters. You see, you are just wrong.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Really? Last time I checked, the schools discredit all such education. If you do not believe me, try to get anywhere in life without official certificates.

Let me guess - you flunked out of highschool and you've got a chip on your shoulder about it? Since you seem to not know the difference between bullying and learning, I can hazard a guess as to the reason for your lack of scholastic attainment.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[melikamp]

Your post is very thoughtful, and yes, I am pretty much going for the "ZOMG" argument. Just one thing:

Children are not responsible adults, that is why we call them children. But no, I would argue the direct opposite: They DO want them to act more like responsible adults.

"A child"--that is not an absolute category. There is no "coming of age" in regard to the responsibility and learning, despite of what most pedagogues are saying. The "irresponsible childhood" is perpetrated by the compulsory schooling itself. It denies the students the satisfaction of their natural desire to make their own decisions, act on them, and learn by experiencing what happens next. Consequently, it generally denies them an opportunity to learn, because much of the learning is accomplished while making a mistake. You are absolutely right if by "acting like responsible adults" you mean "readily submitting to the authority" or "becoming consumers" (first of education, then of everything else). What I meant, though, was more along the lines of "walking down your own path", which has to do with exercising one's own will and therefore being responsible for one's own actions. The latter doesn't really happen without the former.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[RabidMonkey]

Was listening to the CBC on the way home from work yesterday, and they had the minister of education on.

She indicated that their plan for the cyber bullying is to gather students and ask them what THEY would consider to be cyber bullying. That will start the discussion about what constitutes cyber bullying.

Having read about some cyber bullying, I'm glad to see that this action is being taken. There are cases of people getting 100's of text messages abusing them, of myspace/facebook/etc pages being overrun with people harassing kids. Pictures/videos spreading, either real or modified, to harass kids.

How is this a bad thing? This should help tackle a problem that parents and teachers, who are mostly unaware of technology and how it's used. And, since it's actual kids who are helping guide the rules, it should actually mean something more than some government official.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Your proof-of-gayness page is still up? And Dean Wormer's too? Goodness, that's tragic, simply tragic!

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[Anonymous Coward]

However, minors technically do not have the same rights as their older counterparts. So, students don't really have the right to free speech, especially in the context of school.

Re:Cyberbullying? GImme a break

[metamorphage]

He can't be accountable to the school for actions he takes off school grounds. The school simply doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything. If he's posting libel, he may have to answer to the law, but not the school.

A good start, but

[Cassius Corodes]

While its good to see that something is being attempted, I fear that this like other anti-bullying schemes is more about the feel-good factor than really changing anything. Given the trouble teachers have in stamping out bullying in the school yard I don't think they will fare well on the Internet. Kids will be better off getting karate lessons.

Re:A good start, but

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

As long as no one claims, "Hey, he karate-chopped me up!"
On the bright side, they're removing the zero-tolerance rules, so there's a chance of a fair hearing when these bullying charges are brought. Expulsions should be kept to the minimum needed for order, since they are directly linked with not getting a proper education.

wow, thats a lot of overtime.

[Entens]

"The proposed changes unveiled Tuesday also replace mandatory suspensions and expulsions for students (except in limited circumstances), with the requirement that principals and school boards consider and respond to all infractions in the most appropriate way. That means school officials must consider mitigating factors before students are suspended or expelled."

so. students can take the long honored political tactic of filibustering until they have had time to find an alternative solution by creating a constant stream of offenses that must be considered i.e. Verizon Vs. Vonage before the final verdict may be reached.

Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[mrs clear plastic]

These laws are good. What could be better is to make bullying based on sexual orientation more severely punishable.

Many bullying victimes are gays, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Oftentimes schools do nothing to help the victim or punish the bully; much of this inaction is due to homophobia on the part of the school authorities.

What's good about these kind of laws is that they force school administrators to ditch their own homophobia and go after the bullies and perhaps support the victims.

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[Entens]

...affirmative action = reverse discrimination.

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought people with such mental disorders would be in "special" classes to keep from dragging the normal students down.

Posting anon 'cus I know the queers will mod me to oblivion.
-normuser

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[NIckGorton]

Nah, don't need to mod you down, honey. You did that yourself.

Though I will admit I was in special classes in school. The NC School of Science and Math, then NCSU, then UNC School of Medicine, then residency and chief residency in Emergency Medicine at SUNY-Brooklyn.

So that's Doctor Faggot to you, asshole.

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[annex1]

These laws are good. What could be better is to make bullying based on sexual orientation more severely punishable.
Many bullying victimes are gays, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Oftentimes schools do nothing to help the victim or punish the bully; much of this inaction is due to homophobia on the part of the school authorities.
What's good about these kind of laws is that they force school administrators to ditch their own homophobia and go after the bullies and perhaps support the victims. Why should bullying based on sexual orientation deserve more sever punishment? Not everything in Western culture revolves around Homosexuality and alternative life styles. People of a varying sexual preference need only be treated as well as everyone else, not treated better, not treated worse. We're all Human, with rights.

Who are you to decide that a child should be punished more severely for bullying someone who is a Homosexual, versus bullying another child that has Down syndrome or other genetic "flaws" (for lack of a better term). Sounds to me like you are speaking of situations in your life, or the lives of people you know. Think of the bigger picture here, think of someone other than yourself. Part of the reason that folks of different sexual orientation are even still getting media attention is that people won't drop it and accept that they are people, just like everyone of a more "traditional"(again, lack of a better term at the moment) sexual orientation. Why did you even bring this up?

Bullying is bullying, I hate to break the news that someone other than the "gays" get it, but it's true. I was pushed around as a child, because I was overweight back then, but you don't hear me calling for more severe punishment of bullying that revolves around a person's body weight.

Bullying itself needs to be dealt with, of course, but a lot of that should start at home. Too many kids are babysat by the television, because nobody at home gives enough of a shit to teach their child about right and wrong.

It can be quite difficult to track down the source of the bullying, but it has happened for quite a long time and will most likely continue to happen. Please don't turn this into conversation all about how Homosexuals are treated differently than everyone else. It's about bullys and laws.

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[zantolak]

As well as the bullying of straight people accused of being gay.

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about emos..? They are both gay and stupid looking.

Re:Make bullying of gays especially punisable

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because gays are an inferior set of people and need the help of the superior set of people to protect them from harm, right?

Because every time I read something that involves affirmative action, that's the first thought that comes into my mind--the other group of people have to be inferior in some way to need more support than everyone else.

Too far?

[Aelix]

This issue has the support of 94 (!!!) percent of people last I checked on the Globe and Mail's online poll. That's an insane amount of support. It's ok to call "invasion of privacy" when workers get fired for blogging, but when kids post something immature (surprise) on a private site about a teacher they can get suspended?

Re:Too far?

[melikamp]

What really bites is when a kid posts something mature, like a fair criticism of the principal's actions, he gets suspended. Kids being kids does not rock the school system nearly as much as kids behaving like responsible adults. The latter is a strict taboo of the compulsory schooling.

Re:Too far?

[fabs64]

Like you, I haven't rtfa, but I'm going to go right ahead and assume that "Bullying" doesn't apply to teachers or criticism of the school.

Re:Too far?

[slashdotusername]

Why the heck weren't you modded +5 Insightful? That is exactly how most schools are run.

Re:Too far?

[melikamp]

Most likely because of the myths taught in school, myths which are a part of a fictional story about what a "child" is. "Children" cannot learn without having to buy an educational package and being taught by a professional (being taught is taken to be more important than learning). "Children", moreover, should be free of responsibility, because the ability to make responsible decisions has to be taught.

So when I come out and say that the school is preventing its students from behaving and thinking creatively and autonomously, no one even blinks, because "that is what schools are supposed to be doing".

Hint: Bullies use the rules as tools...

[RyanFenton]

From the grade and high schools I've gone to, bullies are usually good at what they do, because punishments can't affect them for one reason or another. Besides, it's not that hard to figure out how to shield yourself from punishment, even while doing some of the most prohibited things in a school. You can shield yourself using threats, you can shield yourself by counter-accusing others, you can shield yourself using politics and parents, and most of all, you can obscure any evidence that would justify a weighty punishment.

Harsh rules usually end up working rather well for bullies. Bullies can threaten other children with false accusations just as well as they always have with a plausible "he started it" claim in the case of a fight. And if this ends up anything like fights were handled at schools I've went to, that means the victims stay quiet, because they know they get punished at a much higher rate than any rule-savvy bully.

This seems functionally more of a rule to punish technically-oriented non-bully kids who happen to anger faculty. I don't know of any kid who didn't constantly insult other kids, especially their friends, so technical kids are virtually guaranteed as targets here because of the visibility of online interactions for bullies or angry teachers to report. From living right on the Canadian border for my last high school years, I don't think Canada is any different.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Hint: Bullies use the rules as tools...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm waiting for the first Social Darwinist poster to point out that kids who get bullied just can't compete with
that kind of smartness and guile, and the market will sort it out.

Go on... reach out with your ignorance... and your journey towards the Dumb Side wil be complete.

Children are not full citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

In discussions like these, it is important to remember that children - people under 18 - are not full citizens, in that they do not have all the legal rights that adults do. They are in school to be taught, but also to be socialized. They are _learning_ how to behave in society. Yes, parents have the first responsability, but schools also - if only by dint of the fact that students spend 25 hours per week in their care - carry a responsibility as well.

Thus, it is right and proper that students in grade schools are denied certain rights if they are not yet able to responsibly exercise those rights. For the same reason, children are prohibited - on the basis of age alone - from voting, driving, drinking, smoking, and so forth.

So arguments against the law referred to in TFA which are based on a putative right to free speech are invalid. Kids say many stupid things, and it is proper to censor them until they are capable of being aware of the consequences of their actions.

Re:Children are not full citizens

[KiahZero]

Maybe in Canada, but in America children do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

None of those things you cite are constitutional rights. You may think voting is a constitutional right, but the right to vote is phrased in the negative: you cannot deny the right to vote on the basis of race, sex, ability to pay a poll tax, or age *over 18*.

Re:Children are not full citizens

[hax0r_this]

But then in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser Justice Burger said that the Tinker ruling only applies to "political speech". Still, I think taking things this far outside the classroom really pushes the limits. Particularly because a lot of what this law is seeking to stop is arguably a form of political speech, particularly criticism of teachers.

Re:Children are not full citizens

[asninn]

Why do US-Americans always have to talk about "first amendment rights" all the time? Outside of the fact that this is Canada we're talking about, a school is neither Congress nor a state.

I mean... imagine that some guy at work is always starting fights with his colleagues, and that the boss ultimately decides to fire him. Can he say "you can't fire me, I've got first amendment rights" now? Of course not. Certainly he's free to pick on his colleagues (as long as he doesn't incite criminal action, slanders them etc.), but the company is just as free to fire him; he does not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to work there.

Schools are similar - not quite the same, since students typically are required to attend (at least up to a certain age), but they don't have to tolerate all kinds of abuse without being able to do anything about it.

Put another way: schools have a purpose, and that purpose is to teach kids and make sure they learn things, and it makes sense to give them the ability to discipline those who actively seek to disrupt that purpose. And geez, we're not even talking about any real punishment here; the worst that can happen to you is that you get kicked out of school - it's not as if you're going to be sent to the slammer for a few or anything. The only thing that happens is that when you show time and again that you are unable and unwilling to respect the fact that the school is there to teach students and that other students have an interest in learning... then sorry bud, you're not welcome anymore. What's so controversial about that?

Also keep in mind that since students are required to attend school, other students will not have an opportunity to evade bullies. If I go to a bar and get into a (verbal) fight with the patrons, I can just decide to not go there again, and everything will be fine - I'm not forced to deal with them. Schools are different, which is another reason why it makes sense to regulate student conduct.

Of course schools can also abuse their authority: suppressions of criticism of teachers/the principal/the school in general, for example, seem to be all too common, and with the authority the school has, it's certainly necessary to ask quis custodiet ipsos custodes and how it's ensured that schools aren't run like tiny police states.

But I don't see what that has to do with bullying, to be honest. I don't see bullying others as a valid form of expressing yourself (freedom is important, but so is non-interference: your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts. When it comes to bullying, that often applies in the most literal sense), and while you might argue that schools are just gonna punish uncomfortable students (and by that, I mean students that ask uncomfortable questions, criticise the school etc.) as bullies now, well... I don't see how schools weren't able to abuse their power and punish those students before as well.

No, it's definitely a good thing that bullying is recognised as unacceptable behaviour, and it's definitely a good thing that schools are given the means to actually deal with it instead of just standing there helpless, watching and not being able to do anything about it.

Re:Children are not full citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, it is right and proper that students in grade schools are denied certain rights if they are not yet able to responsibly exercise those rights. How do you know I am not intellegent enough to exercise my rights "responsibly" just because I am under the age of 18? How the heck do you know someone over the age of 18 IS? Shouldn't there be a test or somehting? Im sure that Im a million times more qualified to exercise my rights than 99% of the adult population.

[sarcasm]Oh yes, I remember, when I reach the "magical" age of 18 I am suddenly able to think and comprehend the world in such a way that I will no longer be a danger to myself and others. When 18 hits I will be so happy to be as enlightened as you fine adults. Then I can decide for myself to vote for idiots and abusers-of-the-constitution so that I can ensure that everyones rights can be trampled on just as much as I have become used to mine being trampled on in my experience in the public indoctrination houses.

Re:Children are not full citizens

[JesseMcDonald]

Why do US-Americans always have to talk about "first amendment rights" all the time? Outside of the fact that this is Canada we're talking about, a school is neither Congress nor a state.

For private schools that would be true. Public schools, however, are subsidiaries of the state government, and thus fall under the state's Constitutional limitations. If a state government is prohibited from doing something -- such as violating 1st Amendment protections -- then agencies of the state (including the schools) are likewise prohibited from doing so.

For that matter even the private schools are not entirely free of such considerations wherever mandantory attendance laws are present. If the state compels you to be present somewhere then the state must ensure that such compulsion will not result in a violation of your rights, disregarding for the moment the violation inherent in the compulsion itself. If the state cannot make such assurances then the compulsory attendence law (not the school's actions) would be unconstitutional.

Re:Children are not full citizens

[nasor]

Of course "young adults" aren't actual adults yet, and they don't have all the legal rights and responsibilities that accompany adulthood. But these are people who are expected to begin living as free adults who will participate in democratic government very soon. They should be receiving training on what it means to be an adult in a free society, and what it means to exercise one's rights. If you always just shrug and say "Eh, they're not adults yet...who cares?" when the government arbitrarily tramples what are supposed to be cherished, fundamental freedoms, you can't expect the teenagers to just magically start living like free adults who appreciate their rights and responsibilities when they turn 18.

We should be training our teenagers to ask government officials question like "Do you really have the authority to do this? What is the basis of your authority? Is your authority legitimate? If I feel you are abusing your authority how do I, as a citizen who participates in our government, go about having your authority revoked?"

It's ridiculous to tell teenagers in a civics class that governmental authority is comes from the will of the people, and that all citizens have a right to free speech, (or do they even tell kids that in school any more?) but then smack them down and say "You have no rights!" any time a petty school administrator feels like bossing them around. Which do you think will influence them more - what their teacher tells them in a lecture, or the way that they are actually forced to live?

Bastards

[L4m3rthanyou]

Why do schools feel this need to control every aspect of students' lives? What occurs outside of school grounds shouldn't be their problem. Besides, "cyberbullying" is a lot easier to ignore than physical bullying, and the playing field is a lot more level. I've always thought of the internet as a "revenge of the nerds" arena. The government is not your nanny, and school is not your daycare. Suck it up. If you're oversensitive to the point that you take stuff over the internet to heart, I think you have bigger things to worry about anyway.

Re:Bastards

[moogle001]

Cause lords know nerds are the only one's on the internet, and nerds are the only ones who get bullied. We all know every single child can filter their email and phone, has the ability to censor vicious rumors and insults passing amongst their peers, and every has the extreme force of will to completely disregard the society around them and be completely self-sufficient. Naturally, teaching our children to respond with more violence and hatred is the most noblest of lessons, and doesn't lead to any social problems in life. It's not like some children are being isolated until they commit suicide or go on killing sprees. No, let's just leave them to sort it out on their own.

Re:Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

So I take it you're still in grade school...?

Or do you not realize that OTHER kids will take the cyber bullying to heart, and start calling the kid in school whatever is published on a web site?

Hello, funding

[Foktip]

What the heck? Ontario schools dont even recieve enough money to even run properly, and theyre worried about cyber-bullying?

Really?

[Ayal.Rosenthal]

Come on! Bullying in the on-line world allows for parity with bullying in the real world. What better way to get back at that 250 lbs meathead who tried to beat you up than by destroying his online persona and making him feel like a tool?

Wha???

[IHC Navistar]

Outside of school?

Another example of school administrator Small Man Syndrome.

bracing style holy war

[Secret Rabbit]

So, then under this law people could theoretically be suspended or expelled for being involved in arguing that K&R rocks (or sucks)?!?!? I mean seriously, just look at any mailing list/news group/web forum/etc. They're all full of people flaming each-other. But, if this law passes, and the people involved are students, they can be expelled for arguing /bracing style/.

This is sickeningly politically correct and does NOTHING to stop this problem. Just like other "methods", the bully will be smart enough to move his/her efforts to another "solution space" that it's unlikely they'll get caught in. It's this sort of reactionary thinking that let this stuff get out of hand in the first place. Seriously, is suspending or expelling the student going to make them stop posting on MySpace? If anything, they'll have more time to do that!

Basically, no law will stop bullying. No law will "pull in the reigns" of the bully. The solution is the same simple one that it always has been; the parents must actually parent there child. This alone will put this back to a healthy level if society actually does it.

Furthermore, the schools have absolutely no right to start parenting children; which this basically amounts to. The schools rights begin and end during school hours. The schools rights also only apply to what happens on school property. Everything outside that is the jurisdiction of the parents, police and society in general.

I'm sorry, but unlike others, I acknowledge the reality that bullying (_not_ the ridiculous hazing bullying that /is/ a problem) is about getting the ability to cope with adversity. It's a necessary life skill and those that don't develop it are going to have *serious* problems in life. Furthermore, when people learn to deal with bullying in appropriate ways (e.g. ignoring the bully), then that bully will have to change tactics (or most likely stop as the person in question isn't really a target anymore). The cycle continues until the bully "grows out of it".

It must be noted that this will benefit both the victim AND the bully. The victim gets the ability to cope with adversity whereas the bully (hopefully) learns that violence and/or intimidation is not the answer (that is, if the victim was able to cope). Most likely this is a form of learning to deal with his/her own stress in a productive way rather than taking things out on someone else.

Also, the fact of the matter is that bullying of this type was extremely rare until very very recently. Recently though, that ratio has started to flip; hyper bullying is getting far more common. So, to see what the problem is, we must look at what has changed in society recently. IMO the list would look something like:

- parent treating the child as a burden. something that you have and then just have to "deal with"
- kids being brainwashed to thinking that they're the best at everything when they're obviously not.
      "All I know is that no-one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything."
      - Assistant Grounds Keeper Skinner, Simpsons
- getting away with treating there parents like crap (similar to the hyper bullying)
- repercussion if the get caught are constant slaps on the wrist or disproportionally rough (i.e. basically no repercussions or so brutal it doesn't matter what you do, you'll get the same harsh punishment, so you might as well go all out).
- teacher becoming apathetic and letting the student talk back, show massive disrespect in class, etc without repercussions.
- teachers not challenging the students academically because god forbid the student will fail and effect there massive ego and get yelled at by the parent(s).
- administration being disciplinarily impotent.
- students having problems with realizing what is reality

One could continue, but I think that the point has been made.

But, I find it stunning that if we dialed back the clock one or two decades with regards to discipline and parenting, it would actually be some major leaps forward.

Re:bracing style holy war

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

When I ignored the bullies I just got hit from behind when I wasn't looking. So much for that idea.

Re:bracing style holy war

[Secret Rabbit]

"""
When I ignored the bullies I just got hit from behind when I wasn't looking. So much for that idea.
"""

Yes and of course b/c it happened to you it'll happen to /everyone/. And of course we need to have instant gratification. Because if it doesn't work straight away, it won't ever work, right. There's never an adjustment period. No never.

----
Not captioned for the sarcasm impaired.

Correction...

[Belial6]

...affirmative action = discrimination.

stupidity

[Tom]

Stupidity in action.

One - school has no business regulating how students behave outside. They're students, not slaves.

Two - most bullies have a second favourite game: Gaming the system. The more rules you create, the more interesting (and rewarding) you make it.

Re:stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

One - school has no business regulating how students behave outside. They're students, not slaves.

Indeed. Yet, if a student's actions, whether inside or outside the school, is having a direct impact on the school's climate then it has every right to take action to protect it's environment. Just because the school bell has rang it doesn't mean that the school's or student's responsibilities towards their fellow students and teachers ceases to be.

Two - most bullies have a second favourite game: Gaming the system. The more rules you create, the more interesting (and rewarding) you make it.

That suggestion is a bit retarded, isn't it? So if someone enjoys "gaming the system" then your solution is to keep the system as easy to "game" as it can possibly be? That doesn't make sense.

Do you understand the concept behind action and consequence? Right now whoever "games the system" does not have to worry about any consequence, which is all by itself a incentive. After all, they do not lose anything if they try. On the other hand, as soon as that person finds out that his actions do indeed have consequences then naturally that incentive will cease to be. Moreover, if that person is dumb enough to still try to force it, then he will be punished and he will learn.

What you are advocating is to not impose any nasty consequence to anyone's actions. What exactly does that accomplish? But you preffer to let the bully be because if anything remotely messes with him he will be displeased and heck, he may even lash out at you, right? Yes, let the bullies do that they will and keep yourself out of their way. It really pays off, right?

Re:stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stupidity in action.

One - school has no business regulating how students behave outside. They're students, not slaves.

Two - most bullies have a second favourite game: Gaming the system. The more rules you create, the more interesting (and rewarding) you make it."

Thankyou for expressing my feelings exactly, being a student my self, i wish comment one was true (for every school i have ever been to has meddled in my afiars: ie punnishment for smokeing off the school grounds....and many other instances) and i know comment two is true.

Re:stupidity

[dkf]

One - school has no business regulating how students behave outside. They're students, not slaves.

Within reason. If students are taking actions outside the school to try to bully students or staff, there's a need to act anyway (though it might be that the right approach for things done outside the school that are bullying involves the police sooner; if students insist on acting like stupid adults, they run the risk of being punished like stupid adults too). On the other hand, many schools may well go to far. There's a balance to be drawn.

Two - most bullies have a second favourite game: Gaming the system. The more rules you create, the more interesting (and rewarding) you make it.

An important rule has always got to be "Do not game the system!"

It should be noted that the main purpose of anti-bullying rules has got to be the prevention of suicides by students. Any school principal who has a student kill themselves because of bullying is a miserable failure who ought to be kicked out (and tarred and feathered) for failure of duty.

Re:stupidity

[Tom]

An important rule has always got to be "Do not game the system!" A rule which will be gamed as well. :-)

It works in a small environment with a short escalation hierarchy. In my game (see below), I am the final arbiter of anything, and I do have a rule in place that says those trying to weasel or lawyer-speak their way out of a clear abuse of the game will be punished twice as hard.

But it only works because you can't appeal to a higher court when I delete your account.

Re:stupidity

[Tom]

That suggestion is a bit retarded, isn't it? So if someone enjoys "gaming the system" then your solution is to keep the system as easy to "game" as it can possibly be? That doesn't make sense. Because you got it backwards. The more rules you have, the easier it is to game the system. There's very little weasel-space in "though shalt not kill". There is a lot of room for lawyers in the multitudes of laws regarding murder, homicide, assault with deadly injuries and whatever the other 20 terms for killing someone are (sorry, not a native english speaker).
Or look at tax laws for a great example.

What you are advocating is to not impose any nasty consequence to anyone's actions. What I was advocating is to keep school business school business and outside-of-school business outside-of-school business. I didn't say nobody should be punished for beating you up in front of the cinema in the evening, but I do think the school isn't the proper place to do the punishment in that case.

If Big Bully says bad things about you on the InterNet, I suggest you try:
a) to have your big brother teach him a lesson
or
b) have your dad call his dead to teach him a lesson
or
c) learn something about the justice system and where slander begins and how it can be prosecuted

Re:stupidity

[Cro Magnon]

In one of the games I play, the moderators make "value judgements". If they decide someone is trying to game the system, they will give them one warning, and if the offender tries to "lawyer" his way out of it, they'll boot him. It works there because the mods are the final authority (the game owner doesn't get involved), and because the mods aren't idiots.

Neither of which is true in schools.

Unintended Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are greatly over-estimating the technological competence of public school administrators. What happens if someone tries to joe-job (send a threatening email with the email of an innocent third party) a student? Do you really think that a 14 year old would be able to convince an angry teacher about how to fake email header? Lets not forget that just a few threads earlier we had a kid who was wrongly jailed for 12 days because the principal couldn't adjust the time on a caller id box.

Furthermore, context is another issue. What happens if a teacher catches site of a kid's CS clan page? Talking about blowing up someone to gibs and taking out the president? How are they going to react? Remember the media panic over Doom when Columbine happened?

I believe that the only people who are going to be hurt by this are the shy nerdy kids who, bullied by the jocks, use the anonymity of the internet as an equalizer

Re:Unintended Consequences

[aussie_a]

On the other hand, kids who bully tend to spread it around and so a mountain of evidence against the bully can accumulate. Although yes, overzealous principles will be a problem with this. Then again, they're a problem with everything.

Bullies are ambitious cowards

[iminplaya]

And part of the problem is that this trait is rewarded in adulthood. Being a yes-man has its perks. And that's usually what they are when confronted with someone stronger than they are. They play the system and it succeeds. Many bullies admire authority figures and usually have the desire to become one. Law enforcement is especially appealing to these kinds of people. Thought patterns on both sides of the law are nearly identical. They just work for different people. Bad behavior is rewarded in many places. These bullies might be punished as kids, but they will reap nice rewards later on. In the meantime the usual hysteria is causing the rest of you to bully free speech right out of existence for all of us because you simply will not accept the truth that words are not deeds.

Why do "bullies" exist in the first place ?

[tibike77]

Ok, I know I'll get flamed badly for this, but why the hell do you even HAVE bullies in the first place ?
Personally, I am a product of a communist regime education system that kept going almost unchanged for almost a decade after "the fall of communism" (winter 1989) in Romania, and to be honest, I *NEVER* actually met a real-life school bully, and none of my (rough) age group have either. Only recently (about 1995 and later) this whole "bully" issue actually started surfacing.

I can't quite put a finger on it, but it seems to me it's the system's fault bullies of ANY kind exist in the first place. Schools are places where kids should go to learn things, from abstract knowledge to social relations, and that includes RESPECT for eachother... but more importantly, their teachers.
The whole punishment system for "troublemakers" is even stupider... suspenstion or expulsion ? Who the fuck are you kidding ? That's not PUNISHMENT for a troublemaker, it's punishment for his parents. A troublemaker would love nothing more as getting expelled, even if it means "trouble at home".

Physical punishment, one of the big "no-noes" of "modern western civilisation" is also a stupid concept, beyond belief. I got spanked and slapped around for stupid things I did, and I din't end up a murderer, nor have I hated my parents or my teachers for doing that.
If anything, it made me comprehend faster that I did a bad thing, and that I will HAVE to do whatever I was supposed to be doing afterwards, after being punished. Teachers should not be stopped from administering non-harmful physical punishment, they should even be encouraged to have THAT as PRIMARY means of discipline.

You hurt a classmate on school grounds, you disrupt the class, or you're just not paying attention in class... hell yes, you deserve a fucking slap on your cheek, a ruler slammed into your palm, or even a boot up your ass. And then, you DON'T go to detention, you're not getting suspended, you don't get to go home or stay home for a few days... oh no, you get to go back to your seat, pay attention to the class, or even get to the blackboard and get a GRADE for what you know (or rather said, prove you don't know) from whatever was just thought. And you get the same treatment over and over again until you comply: stop being disruptive, and LEARN something for a change.

But no, I guess "western public school system" is nothing about teaching the kids anything (let alone proper respect for their fellow students, or god forbid their teachers), it's just about getting them out of their parent's hair for the duration of the day, teaching them jackshit and grinding out endless rows of drones primed for manual labor and with an archaic, downright primitive mindset.

Slander

[Anonymous Coward]

why use new laws, if the comments slander somone punnish them using this area of law. no new laws are required. if this area of your country lacks the laws required to combat this, then school yard slander will help them learn to deal with the world they are about to enter.

Re:Slander

[Zephida]

IANAL, but I would guess, that the existing laws are probably accurate, however politicians being politicains, are very quick to jump on any new fad that appeals to the mass of voters. Just look at the UK and its "ASBO" culture. Laws were already in place to prevent drunken fights, petty crime, and overall abuse - so any person getting an ASBO was already comitting a crime - but the tems "ABSO" resonates with the public much more than charing the local youths under some obsure clause of the public service act of 1952

cyberbulling is as real as you make it

[arcite]

Like most things in human life, its psychological. I'm sure many a 'nerd' on here knows what I'm talking about. Being exposed to the same psychological shit everyday from a bully when you're 12 takes an effect. People must be accountable for their actions if we are all to get along in society. Similarly...as a certain tragedy earlier this week clearly demonstrated, we also need to intervene when we see our acquaintances are clearly in trouble.

Also, it is the teacher and principals job to PROTECT the children and help mold them into good human beings. What do you think they are for? guh.

Students are not adults

[arcite]

They are CHILDREN or YOUNG ADULTS. There is a BIG difference and if you can't acknowledge that well, you're an idiot.

Re:Students are not adults

[nasor]

I must have missed the part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it says that the right to free speech doesn't apply to people under 18.

Re:Students are not adults

[Anonymous Coward]

So you claim that children should never be accountable for their actions and have the nerve to call others idiots?

Heh. Oh please...

[Moraelin]

Heh. Oh please... Is cyber-bullying some made-up thing? No, it's not. We're in the age where employers routinely google their employees, neighbours google each other, and the village gossip googles the whole damn village for gossip material. We also live in an age where people might glue posters to your door just because someone found a sex offender by the same name via googling (yep, it happened) or run you out of town just because your business card says "paeditrician" (hint: it's a doctor for kids, not a paedophile.) Someone can do a _lot_ of harm that way.

E.g., if someone were to poison the web and the boards with some fake "I love fucking pre-teen boys" fake homepage for you, or troll a lot of boards with stuff like "melikamp said he's working hard to overcome his kiddy-porn addiction" or "read melikamp's guide to surfing the porn from work and using the corporate app server as a warez ftp site", it would cause a lot more damage than you seem think.

It might come to bite you in the ass at the next time you're looking for a job, for a start, and you might not even know it. Noone does a thorough search to filter libel from actual info, and put it all in the right context. You're not worth that kind of effort. They're just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to trim the candidates pool before they even start. They'll just google until something bad comes up, then stop.

Even if they suspected it's bogus, a lot of people and companies are basically just prom queens anyway. It would be unfashionable for them to be associated with someone with that kind of a reputation. They have some PR image of being a responsible family-friendly company, and it's just not worth the effort to answer once a week, "then why do you associate with that pervert?" protests.

More importantly, it does cause real grief. It's not as simple as "then don't go to that MySpace page." When your friends start avoiding you, or asking "wow, did you really do _that_?", it's damn hard to just blissfully ignore it.

As for the "free expression" rant... well, basically I'm just going to say, "pfft... who cares?" The _spirit_ of those liberties was to provide a possibility for _political_ change. (See the "petition for redress" part.) It was not supposed to be a god given right to slander the neighbour, bully the classmates, troll the boards, cheat on WoW, and whatever else some people imagine. If it ends up used just as an excuse to bully, harrass and cause grief, we'll put some limits on it. It's that simple.

You _can_ still affect plenty of change even without singling out and bullying individuals. You can campaign for a reform of the school system, or whatever. Attack the idea or the organization, not bully individuals. Or maybe you have a genuine problem with an individual? Well, we have courts of law, they have superiors, etc. If they're that bad, probably everyone else feels the same about them, and you have enough people backing you to go the civilized route. We don't need self-appointed thugs individually terrorizing and intimidating people, thank you very much. Online or offline. If you can't come up with anything better than bullying that teacher, then excuse me if I don't think you should be allowed to.

Yes, slippery slope, fascism, authority is doubleplus ungood, etc... who cares? Democracy isn't just a buzzword to whip people into a frenzy, it's really the ability to affect change. The notion that, basically, "article/ammendment X is sacred and beyond any meddling" is what theocracies do, not what a democracy is all about. If one liberty was poorly enough defined to end up just an excuse to bully, harrass and cause grief, we'll have it changed, thank you very much. We'll reword it or put limits on it, until it serves its original purpose, and stops being a liability.

Yes, we all like being free to say stuff like "we should pull out of Iraq already" or "the president is dumb" without fear. You know, _political_ stuff. No, we don't think that it should extend to "the principal said he likes to

Re:Heh. Oh please...

[melikamp]

So, you are saying, we should crack down on "cyber-bullies" and censor speech on the Web because my potential employers are too greedy, impersonal, and utilitarian, and they prefer to appraise me in the cheapest way possible? That is, they go by the "cyber-rumors", which they get off the anonymous message boards, and websites whose real owner is unknown to determine what kind of person I am? Don't you see a problem here?

Re:Heh. Oh please...

[Moraelin]

If by "problem" you mean, "people should be smarter than to judge someone by anonymous rumours", well, yes, it would be nice if people changed and everyone was sane and logical. It won't happen any time soon, though. In the meantime, we _are_ stuck in a world where anonymous rumours do a lot of real harm.

You know, sorta like "it would be nice to have summer right now." Yeah, it would be nice, but it's not going to change just because I wish it would change.

And in a sense, they _are_ logical, just not to the end they proclaim. That's how people manage to seem illogical: they proclaim one goal, when they're really after another. Or they present a (somewhat bent) line of reasoning from facts to logical conclusion, when they really worked backwards from what they _really_ want to what excuse they can present as axioms to reach the desired conclusion. E.g., they don't really start from "the facts are X and Y, therefore it follows logically that I actually need a pony", they start from "I want a pony" and work backwards to what excuse they can sorta base it on.

In this case, _if_ the goal was to find the absolute best employee, yeah, it would make no sense to first trim the pool based on rumours and even worse. The real goal usually is to not have to work much at it. Trimming the pool _is_ the goal, so to speak. Some boss can't be arsed to judge 10,000 CVs, so he'll find arbitrary ways to get rid of 90% of them.

If you think rumours are a bad way, there are worse. Some are proud that they first discard half the pile without any further reason. Some use, literally, tarot and numerology. Seriously. Assign one number for each letter in your name, sum that to a number, sum that number's digits, keep at it until you have a single digit. If you match the digit for the company's name, you qualify for the next round, if not, you're not a good match for the company anyway. Nice way to get rid of 90% of the applications in one fel swoop. Easily automatable too.

Next round, google them for an excuse to not hire them. Ah, he posted some stuff about authority that's not to my liking. Probably some immature malcontent, he'd probably question my authority too. Next applicant. Google, click, click, ah, he has a MySpace page. MySpace is only for kids and paedos. Grow up buddy. Yep, another resume goes into the garbage bin. Next applicant. Geesh, he has an AOL address. No need to even google him, AOLers are infamous for being clueless noobs. Get a real provider if you claim to be a techie, buddy. Yep, another resume bites the dust. (Repeat ad nauseam.)

For the neighbours, much the same applies: they _are_ logical, but not to the ends they proclaim. The goals might just be to be a fashionable prom-queen of the community, so it's better to join in the crowd shouting "boo! drive the pervert out of town!" than to be the unfashionable one playing the devil's advocate.

Etc.

That's how humans work. We're driven by petty goals, laziness, etc, and from there we work backwards to find some excuse for it.

What are you going to do? Change the whole world? Noble goal, no doubt, but ultimately doomed to fail.

Re:Heh. Oh please...

[fractoid]

So, you are saying that mud doesn't stick and thus it should be legal to throw it?

Re:Heh. Oh please...

[melikamp]

I am only talking about the mud that is already legal to throw. The law in question would not make anything illegal, but would give principals the power to detain and expel for all kinds of independent expression outside of the classroom which the school deems inappropriate.

Re:Heh. Oh please...

[tomstdenis]

As the victim of joe-jobs, yes, people *are* that quick to judge. Trust me.

And often, joe-jobs will stick your personal info (phone number, address, email addy) on the attacks. Sure, you or I may be able to tell a forgery easily, but there are enough people who are not as knowledgeable or quick thinking to figure it out.

Tom

Tom

Care to cite a real world example?

[arcite]

Otherwise it just another inane comment.

Re:Care to cite a real world example?

[melikamp]

All of my personal experiences are negative examples; I am not very confrontational in person.

I've seen some teachers who were incompetent, teachers who were wrong (in my opinion, at least), and teachers who were jerks. I almost never was in a position, though, to criticize their methods, because of the authority granted to them by the school. It would take me (and the rest of the class) nowhere. And yet making personal decisions and choosing your own path, especially with respect to learning, are qualities of a responsible adult. The compulsory schooling conditions its students to sacrifice these traits for the sake of "efficiency". I could go on a rant about how that, in turn, prepares students for fitting into the corporate world, where the same childish attitude is encouraged (saying "yes" to your boss when he is wrong, because "no" might get you fired), but that would take me entirely too far from the topic.

Re:Care to cite a real world example?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not very confrontational in person.

That's because you're a spastic. And you look like a faggot with that shitty little beard.

Re:Care to cite a real world example?

[melikamp]

My beard is actually gay. That is why it's so gay-looking. It has butt-sex with men and then I get shit smeared all over my face. So I have to lick it off with my tongue. Because of that I became addicted to gay shit and I can't get enough. Also, I always keep a stapler in the glove compartment.

And they never will..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying. But a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't yet have the maturity to deal with these things."

And if people like you have their way, they never will.

Define bullying

[Antony-Kyre]

Bullying is a loosely defined term, kind of like terrorism. With creativity, it can pretty much be applied to anything.

Focusing just on cyber-bullying, let us consider the following.

If a student says that he wishes another student were dead, that he hates the other person, but doesn't "threaten" the student in any way, I don't think the school should act.

However, if a student says he is going to beat another student up, saying that he is going to blow up his house or another violent act, then yes, the school should act.

If a student is posting libelous material on a site about another student, then the school should act because libel is not justified.

Posing as another student, by creating fake profiles, would justify the school in acting because it probably defames the student (libelous).

Fuck 'em

[aussie_a]

This law sounds terrible, I'd hate for it to pass.

I also want those sexual harassment laws repealed. If a woman doesn't want to be sexually harassed at work, she can go look for a job elsewhere or start her own business. Her right to not be sexually harassed infringes on my right to sexually harass people. Same deal with TFA's law.

[/sarcasm]

Actually schools are one of the most powerful

[arcite]

forces in society to shape children. Teachers and principals are incredibly powerful.

There are laws that require teachers to intervene if they feel students are being threatened. Such as suspecting child abuse, or severe depression...ect.

Yet another difference in attitudes between Canada and the US perhaps.

A Canadian viewpoint

[SpeedyDX]

I really like how you used the term "help make schools safer", because that is a very American idea. Not to say that Canadians don't care if schools are safe or not, but we just have a lot less to worry about what with strict gun control and other such laws. Our focus is not on "making schools safer", per se, but to create and maintain an active and friendly learning environment. A lot of the focus that Canadian schools (both at the elementary and high school levels) have is to eliminate harassment of all forms. There are several distinct schools of thought regarding this, and I think Americans and Canadians (allowing for exceptions) represent two of those schools of thought very well.

The typical American way of thinking is that restricting certain forms of harassment (physical, sexual) is good, but other forms (most verbal and written forms) impede on free speech. This is largely because the American culture favours a radical individualist approach (which in itself is not a bad thing). This view is best represented by the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" or some variation thereof. This is itself not without its merits, and may indeed "develop personality," as they say.

However, the typical Canadian view is different. We are slightly less independently-minded and, whether we realize it or not, very community- and socially-aware (on an unrelated note, this partially explains the "nice Canadian" phenomenon where Canadians will say sorry to someone even if the other person was the one who was "wrong", e.g., many Canadians will say sorry if someone else bumps into them). The Canadian school of thought is one where all harassment has some negative impact. This view is based off several other views.

One is the view that the entire school suffers when a student is being harassed in any way. If authority figures don't do anything when a classmate is being harassed, there is increased tension and decreased trust between students and the faculty. This phenomenon is highly visible if you talk to the friends of harassment victims.

Another view is based off psychological and sociological principles. Adults (and some teenagers) have formed a solid identity of themselves in their own minds. This identity can be used as a defence mechanism of sorts, something to fall back on when they are being harassed (verbally or online). When someone makes a website about me calling me a loner, for example, I can say "no, I'm not" and just ignore it, because of the identity that I have forged for myself. However, a 10 year old does not have the same privilege. A 10 year old is still trying to form an identity for himself. If one person calls him a loner, but many others don't, he is able to shrug it off. However, when someone makes a website about it and the URL is being passed around like hot fudge, the 10 year old begins to question himself, or worse, begins to BELIEVE the things said in the website.

All of these points combine to form an inhospitable learning environment for the victim and increases the overall tension in the school.

So, as a Canadian, I think you're wrong. I don't think that this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think the knee-jerk reaction is to say, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," a saying with no empirical verification. On the other hand, the psychological and sociological principles that are behind the more Canadian view have been shown in at least SOME studies (google it, I only have textbooks and lectures to go on), and carry at least some empirical/scientific significance.

Re:A Canadian viewpoint

[Op911]

A very interesting thesis you post. FYI, I too am a Canadian.

Add?

[antdude]

What is an add? Or is that a typo of ad?

Free expression? Gimme a break

[ampathee]

Uh, no-one's trying to stop students "learn things on their own" - there is no big conspiracy to stop students questioning authority (here). I don't know if you've been on MySpace lately, but it seems most school-aged children aren't really into "learning on their own" - they're more into bad spelling and grammar, childish insults and the like.

Example from here:

Among the findings was a growing trend to circulate embarrassing video clips of young people getting changed after school PE sessions. The images are being captured on mobile phones and passed onto classmates' video iPods. The clips were accompanied by sound tracks of critical comments from laughing tormentors about their victim's body shape or physical attractiveness.

Yep, those student sure were expressing their ideas and passionately learning.

More worryingly:

A group of youths allegedly punched, kicked and humiliated a 16-year-old Hastings boy in what police described as a "repugnant" attack which was filmed and then posted on the internet.
That posting led to two youths, aged 14 and 16, being arrested yesterday and charged with assault. They will appear in the Hastings Youth Court on Friday.
Between 20 to 30 youths - some as young as 12 - watched as the victim was attacked in a Hastings park on March 30.

Obviously this incident had a definite NON-cyber component to it. However, I heard an interview on the radio with the Hastings police chief, and he mentioned that some of the motive for the attack appeared to be increased "street cred" for the attackers, via the YouTube posting.

Basically, I think you give kids way too much credit.

Re:Free expression? Gimme a break

[moeinvt]

I don't see what either of these incidents has to do with the proposed "cyber-bullying" law.

" . . .embarrassing video clips of young people getting changed after school PE sessions."

In this case, I believe that the school SHOULD have the authority to take action. This is clear evidence of inappropriate behavior by students on school property. I would expect that the school has rules prohibiting this sort of thing. If they don't then they should strongly consider it!

". . . posting led to two youths, aged 14 and 16, being arrested yesterday and charged with assault."

Perfect! I love it when criminals record their crimes for the authorities. It seems that no "cyber-bullying" legislation was required in this case.

I think that malicious online attacks, especially targeted at children are a problem, but I perceive it as an issue of society at large. There are just too many problems with the idea of empowering schools to monitor the online behavior of their students and take selective disciplinary action.

Re:Free expression? Gimme a break

[budgenator]

I believe that video clips of young people getting dressed after PE is called kiddie-porn and it will get someone into serious trouble with the law including prison time, porrole afterwards and regisitry as a sex offender for the remainder of his life.

Show of hands -- Here's One

[vtcodger]

Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel.

I agree that students need to be protected from bullying. I'm not wild about laws like this. They will surely be abused. But, I can't think of a better answer. So I'll stand with you in protecting the inmates of the educational establishment.

But teachers and the principal? The last thing the world needs is laws that shield those in authority from criticism.

Re:Show of hands -- Here's One

[Hognoxious]

But teachers and the principal? The last thing the world needs is laws that shield those in authority from criticism.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman! Criticism is one thing - but if it's false and posted with malicious intent, it's libellous.

Criticism: Principal X selects based on political affiliation, not ability.

Libel: Princpal X is a crack addict [1].

Not rocket science, is it?

[1] if he isn't one.

Re:Show of hands -- Here's One

[Cro Magnon]

Here's a more likely scenario, given the lack of tact from a typical HSer.

Principal X is a lesbian: Libel; she likes men, she just can't find any that can stand her.

Principal X is a brainless authoritarian: Fact, but not very well presented.

Re:Show of hands -- Here's One

[Anonymous Coward]

The libel bit kicks in where "brainless" is proven to be incorrect - biologically he has a brain. See how easy it is to stray from verbal-bullying into a legal problem? Fast and loose with the insults and I can assure you most of them can be shown in court to be libellous.

Sorta OT, but Graham misses the point

[Moraelin]

Sorta off-topic, but methinks that Paul Graham misses the point by a mile, and just manages to add insult to injury.

The fact is, a number of kids (and adults) suffer from Asperger Syndrome. In a nutshell, it's missing the whole input circuitry for "body language". An aspie simply doesn't have the equipment to deal with those popularity games. He can go on for years talking about the wrong topics, or wearing the unfashionable clothes, or looking bored at the wrong time, and won't even know that he offended anyone. Or why is everyone else avoiding him.

Incidentally, Asperger Syndrome also creates "nerds". People with it end up more interested in stuff like maths, physics, programming, etc, for which they don't lack the input. If you will, "how the world works" as opposed to "how people work, and how to game it."

By the sound of it, Paul Graham wasn't one. If he _could_ tell who's popular, and who gravitates around whom, he probably wasn't. Good for him.

But then it's pretty stupid to tell one, basically, "you're unpopular because you don't want to be popular." It's like telling a paraplegic, basically, "you're in a wheelchair because you don't want to walk." If the nerve connections aren't there, you can want it all day long, it just won't happen.

Yes, you can learn to function in society with it. But it takes a lot of time, and a lot of shooting in the dark, and whole days of acting based on guessing what the others would react to this and that. Because you just don't see the reactions. But you'll never be anywhere _near_ in the same class as the local prom-queen or jock. The best you can do is play it safe not to offend, and maybe tell a few non-offensive jokes and wisecracks, not go for being the popular kid.

You'll _never_ be in the A category of popularity, in his giving popularity grades to cafeteria tables. You can at most work your way to being tolerated in a C category instead of D. Or more practically, find yourself a group where you all like each other enough, and don't give a damn if you're all D grade as popularity goes

And it takes a lot of missing the mark and some outside help to even realize that you're doing anything wrong. E.g., in retrospect I used to go into whole tirades about how, say, a radio works, starting with the transformer and ending with the speaker. Good grief, how boring it must have been for the poor victims of it. It never occured to me at the time. Unless you have someone to tell you "dude, you bored everyone stiff" or "dude, wtf, you told that joke the 20'th time this week", you just don't even know that something was wrong. And most people will avoid telling you something like that.

And reading something like "you're unpopular because you don't want to be popular" is just blaming the victim, and frankly cruel. It just adds an undeserved helping of guilt and insecurity, to someone whose self esteem is taking kicks every day as it is.

Re:Sorta OT, but Graham misses the point

[SpecTheIntro]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

The prevalence of AS is not well established, but conservative estimates using the DSM-IV criteria indicate that two to three of every 10,000 children have the condition, making it rarer than autistic disorder itself.

So I'm going to say that your argument, while well-worded, fails, because this syndrome affects .02-.03% of the population. There are a great deal many more nerds in the world than this. I am posting on slashdot, so you can probably guess where my personal interests lie. To top it off, I was a pretty overweight kid during middle school. I had to deal with my fair share of insults and hopeless crushes. And he's right--when I was younger, I was more concerned with knowledge than with popularity.

Luckily, I am an extremely proud person, and eventually the perceived shame of being overweight, and of not having women attracted to me, drove me to start exercising. I also started to devote some time to cultivating my social skills--rather than taking the easy way out and avoiding social situations that made me uncomfortable (like dances, parties, etc.) I started making an effort to go to them and interact with a lot of other people. Social skills are incredibly necessary in day-to-day life, and I am eternally thankful that I took the time to do what I did back then (and during college), because it's made me a happier and more successful person. Would I be smarter if I'd alternatively spent that time writing, studying, etc? Probably, but the trade-off in this case was absolutely necessary. Most people I know, who share my interests, are complete assholes. They are bitter about their childhood, fiercely defensive of their nerd status, and generally unpleasant to be around. Even my fellow IT professionals are normally very unpleasant to deal with, because they are so supremely arrogant and uncouth. The real world doesn't care how smart you are, it cares how well you work with others. Unfortunately, most nerds continue to ignore this fact, and end up living unhappy lives and working underpaid jobs, because they lack the charisma and intuition to progress.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Honestly, it would be wonderful if children didn't have to experience the pain and rejection associated with bullying. But there will always be assholes in the world. And I'm much more concerned with a population that doesn't know how to respond to assholes, than one that lets its children take a few licks early on so they know how to deal/respond to it. Now I'm not condoning bullying here: assault is illegal and it should always be. But we can't coddle our children forever; the real world is a brutal place, and nothing we do can change it. It is brutal in every country, across every culture: you either accept this and prepare for it, or futilely rail against it.

Re:Sorta OT, but Graham misses the point

[Moraelin]

Not much to disaggree with, but mostly for the sake of clarification:

So I'm going to say that your argument, while well-worded, fails, because this syndrome affects .02-.03% of the population.

My argument would fail if I had made the blanket generalization that all nerds have Asperger Syndrome. Which I didn't. All I'm saying that Paul Graham's generalization that, basically, "you're unpopular because you want to be unpopular" is also false. There _are_ people (not all, obviously, but there are) which just can't take part in these popularity games even if they wanted to.

At the scale, of, say, a country with 300,000,000 population, 2..3 out of 10,000 means that some 60,000 to 90,000 people will have the condition. Obviously it doesn't cover all nerds, but it's a non-negligible enough fraction to be a counter-example to his generalization.

Unfortunately, most nerds continue to ignore this fact, and end up living unhappy lives and working underpaid jobs, because they lack the charisma and intuition to progress.

Here you seem to assume that everyone has the same goals. If your measure of happiness is measured in money, by all means, go ahead and engage in social games for a promotion.

Thing is, that's what some of us actually try to avoid. Hard to believe as that might sound.

The thing is, in most places the most accessible way upwards is a promotion to management. Which pretty much means changing jobs completely. That's the point where you cease to be an engineer/programmer/whatever, and start being a manager. They're as unrelated as switching a job as a gardener for a job at MacDonalds. You'll have to do different things, interact with different people, and have completely different kinds of interactions.

If you see that job as just an interchangeable way to get money, sure, go ahead and change job X for job Y just because it pays more. Why not? If however you happen to love job X and hate job Y, at some point you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.

Happiness is a function of many variables, and money is just one variable there. Being more happy is more of a min-max problem in a multi-dimensional space, not something where you can maximize X and not even care about what happens to Y and Z. Sometimes gaining an extra 1 unit along X, is not worth it if you lose 10 units on Y and Z. It might actually be a _less_ optimal solution than what you started with.

The problem is even less trivial when the scale isn't even linear. More money is less and less important when you're already well past the bare necessities range, even past the conveniences, and already well into luxuries range. A little more money won't make me signifficantly happier. On the other hand, moving into a job I dislike (I've tried it, I know I dislike it) will make me signifficantly unhappier. It's just not worth it.

Now I'm not saying _you_ should apply the same, of course. That's a judgment you'll have to make for yourself. I know what _I_ chose, though.

And to get back to the point: so not being social means I'll be forever trapped behind a computer, doing the same job? Well, _good_! Yippee! You just gave me the perfect reason to be unsocial.

Re:Sorta OT, but Graham misses the point

[SpecTheIntro]

My argument would fail if I had made the blanket generalization that all nerds have Asperger Syndrome. Which I didn't. All I'm saying that Paul Graham's generalization that, basically, "you're unpopular because you want to be unpopular" is also false. There _are_ people (not all, obviously, but there are) which just can't take part in these popularity games even if they wanted to.

But a generalization is just that: a generalization. It exists to let us make general statements about a population, with the foreknowledge that there will be exceptions to the general rule. All I was pointing out is that Asperger's syndrome does not constitute enough of the nerd population to warrant revocation of Paul Graham's generalization. If over 50% of nerds had Asperger's, then it would be safe to say that Paul Graham was just wrong. But since Asperger's affects a minute proportion of society, his generalization holds: those with the syndrome are just an exception.

Here you seem to assume that everyone has the same goals. If your measure of happiness is measured in money, by all means, go ahead and engage in social games for a promotion.

Here you're reading too much into what I said. I never said "living unhappy lives BECAUSE they work underpaid jobs." I said "living unhappy lives AND working underpaid jobs." It can be any combination of the two. Personally I think that nerds are often woefully underpaid because they lack the social skills to promote their work and properly articulate why they deserve raises/promotions. In my personal experience, nerds often lack tact, patience, and compassion for those with less perceived intelligence. Being a jerk in the working world only works if you've got the charisma to shamelessly promote yourself at the expense of others; as we've both established, nerds lack that charisma, so all they end up being (most of the time) are jerks who stay in the lower levels of the company.

The thing is, in most places the most accessible way upwards is a promotion to management. Which pretty much means changing jobs completely. That's the point where you cease to be an engineer/programmer/whatever, and start being a manager. They're as unrelated as switching a job as a gardener for a job at MacDonalds. You'll have to do different things, interact with different people, and have completely different kinds of interactions.

Again, proper social skills help alleviate or altogether avoid this phenomenon. You are correct that management is a completely different field of work than engineering/programming/etc., but a creative worker (with the social skills to sell their ideas) will find ways to get paid more for the work they do, and possibly even create positions for themselves. The upper levels of any corporation include management AND strategy, and I think a lot of nerds would thrive in a position where they got to make long-term decisions about how IT/programming/engineering went down in the company. And of course, some people just want to program and do nothing else, and that's fine too. But I think a lot of nerds are fairly ambitious people, and it is rare that an ambitious person with no social skills can see their ambitions realized. Eventually you're going to have to work with other people, and how you interact with them is crucial in the formation of the end-product.

And to get back to the point: so not being social means I'll be forever trapped behind a computer, doing the same job? Well, _good_! Yippee! You just gave me the perfect reason to be unsocial.

Yes, but you are professing that you are happy where you are--so there's no impetus for you to change anything at all. Most of the nerds I know are not happy where they are: they despise their jobs, they constantly gripe about their social lives (or lack thereof), and are extremely negative people. Humans are social creatures; we thrive on social interaction, it's just t

Interesting. Why now?

[Opportunist]

Anyone here that has NOT been the target of the school bully? Reaction? Zero. "Deal with it", at best.

Why all of a sudden a reaction? Because it's no longer brawns but technology that does the "beating"? Because it no longer matters whether you have the necessary physical attributes but only whether you have the necessary equipment? What changed? That it's a teacher now who gets his virtual nuts kicked?

Personally I'm all for limiting a bully's 'freedom'. Though maybe we should first of all find out what makes a person a bully. I kinda doubt that anyone gets up in the morning and suddenly gets the bright idea to make someone else's life miserable.

Re:Interesting. Why now?

[garett_spencley]

As a candian who's been out of high school for about 7 years I can say that the culture is quite different in Canada. While there are "jocks" and "nerds" (as well as countless other labels) the "jocks" aren't as praised as they seem to be in American culture.

From what I remember in school, they've always had "zero tolerance" for violence and bullying. While I disagree with this proposed policy (due to free speech concerns as well as the fact that I think it's none of their business what students do outside of school), it's not really anything new for them. They've always cracked down hard on bullying.

Re:Interesting. Why now?

[Abcd1234]

Why all of a sudden a reaction?

Simple. Because a couple of kids who were bullied and ostracized in school eventually snapped and, with the help of firearms, killed a good many people before taking their own lives.

See, before that happened, bullying was a largely ignored problem that everyone knew existed, but no one wanted to deal with, since it's a) and hard problem, and b) there didn't seem to be any consequences for *not* dealing with it.

But those two boys demonstrated, in dramatic, extremely misguided fashion, that there *are* consequences. It's just a shame that it took the death of so many innocent students for people to admit that, yes, bullying is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Re:Interesting. Why now?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I kinda doubt that anyone gets up in the morning and suddenly gets the bright idea to make someone else's life miserable.

Why not? There are all sorts of creative people.

Re:Interesting. Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is interest now because it is documented. Before now, it was all just hearsay.

Speaking of that, many parents are surprised that their kids swear, or talk about sex, or any of the other things almost all teenagers talk about without their parents knowing. They're now blaming the internet for it, when really the only change is that it is documented, so no longer hidden. The parents aren't as oblivious anymore.

MySpace

[Chiaro Meratilo]

Aren't kids not supposed to be on MySpace anyway?

Re: Adult Bullying

[TaoPhoenix]

I must disagree here.

With the increased capacities of adults, comes increased capabilities for bullying. The adult versions are called Slander & Libel. Can you brush those off so easily when they would affect your community reputation?

Actually, these steps in the article go a ways towards *extending* the adult protections towards children. You don't like the smear campaign someone posted to YellowRag.com? Send a Cease & Desist letter. Little Joey doesn't like Big Bernard stealing his class photo and posting photoshopped versions of it on the net? Awww. Too bad for him.

WoW ban anyone?

[plasmacutter]

no cyberbullying allowed eh? i guess that 7 on 1 zerg is out of the question now.. you'll be expelled from school for it!

Re:WoW ban anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

no cyberbullying allowed eh? i guess that 7 on 1 zerg is out of the question now.. you'll be expelled from school for it!

Guess I'm safe... I only play Furcadia.

I wonder...

[Panaqqa]

Does Ontario mention how it is going to determine who the cyber bully is, in order to mete out this punishment? Are they going to magically determine that profile "jimmyisstupid444" is really little Johnny Smith, with the social networking sites and YouTube bending over backwards to give out confidential user information upon request of an Ontario teacher? Somehow I don't think so.

Kids aren't stupid, and they're not technical morons either. They know how to set up yet another throw away HotMail address and use it to create fake mySpace, FaceBook and YouTube profiles. Methinks the Ontario powers that be will see no drop in cyber bullying, but will find they no longer have anyone identifiable to punish.

Whatever happened...

[Notquitecajun]

To the good old-fashioned ways of dealing with bullies...like getting your boys and standing up for yourself or firing them when they work for you later in life?

And monitoring will be paid by...?

[Glove d'OJ]

Got to love the socialist country of Canada.

Who will pay for the "monitoring?" Will it now be a new assignment of teachers to go onto MySpace pages to attempt to find bullying?

And what would stop a rule-savvy bully from producing "counter evidence" to show that they were bullied first? Or that the principal (i.e., a brand new MySpace account registered through a gmail address in the principal's name) was not responsiblefor the bullying?

This is definitely a "feel good" law that will be loosely enforced, and will be quite ineffective overall.

Re:And monitoring will be paid by...?

[plasmacutter]

Got to love the socialist country of Canada.

stop trying to turn the very beneficial concept of socialism into a derogatory slur.

Who will pay for the "monitoring?"

the same people who pay for their universal healthcare, which, despite its defficiencies, at least doesnt leave 47 million and growing paying without the most basic of medical coverage.

as a student just out of the age range for coverage under my parent's group plan, i can attest that perscriptions cost me more per month than i pay for textbooks each semester. I dont know about how greedy you are, but i'd be more than happy to have a higher income or payroll tax knowing that i wont be leeched for my entire life savings if god forbid something serious were to happen to me.

Re:And monitoring will be paid by...?

[Glove d'OJ]

"stop trying to turn the very beneficial concept of socialism into a derogatory slur."

Yeah, the Chinese, Venezuelans, Bolivians, and former Soviet Russians love it. Socialism is beneficial for those that are below the median for production of income. A main tenant of socialism is that income is "distributed," so it is ok to re-distribute it. All this time, I thought that income was *earned.* Silly me.

And how is my statement a derogatory slur?

"Who will pay for the 'monitoring?'" / "the same people who pay for their universal healthcare, which, despite its defficiencies, at least doesnt leave 47 million and growing paying without the most basic of medical coverage."

Good, you answered my rhetoric question. Clearly, those who pay taxes will fund it. Of course, should we be paying teachers or the school system in general for policing websites like MySpace or Facebook for "bullying." Clearly, a bullying standard would need to be created. If I say "plasmacutter eats nust", is that bullying? What is nust? Is that a bad word? Is it a nonsense word? (yes) So how does one legislatively define bullying?

Will any of this spent money be recouped? How much should the taxpayers of Ontario or Canada overall pay to prevent one student being saved from a bully? $100? $1000? $10000? $100000? Is it worth it at that point?

This looks like the opportunity for a lot of very expensive bullcrap.

"as a student just out of the age range for coverage under my parent's group plan, i can attest that perscriptions [sic] cost me more per month than i pay for textbooks each semester."

Sorry to hear that. I hope you feel better soon.

"I dont know about how greedy you are, but i'd be more than happy to have a higher income or payroll tax knowing that i wont be leeched for my entire life savings if god forbid something serious were to happen to me."

I am rather greedy, thanks. I think that the money I work hard to earn in a profitable trade after investing in my own education should stay *mine*, and not be confiscated at gun point to pay for health care for people I don't know. To mitigate [being] "leeched for my entire life savings if god forbid[sic] something serious were to happen to me," I (wisely, in my opinion) invest some of the non-confiscated money I earned through hard work in private health insurance. I have had "something serious" happen to me a few times so far in my life, and have survived financially.

Buck up, little camper (eh?) The government should not be taking care of everyone's every boo boo. At somepoint we all need to act like adults.

Re:And monitoring will be paid by...?

[plasmacutter]

he government should not be taking care of everyone's every boo boo. At somepoint we all need to act like adults.

flunked economics didnt you? resources are scarce, which means no matter how hard people work there will always be a good portion below the poverty line. it's not about being irresponsible, it's about pure and ruthless mathematics. those people deserve to have a minimum safety net.

as for my ills, it's a chronic disease, and your precious private health insurance firm will turn me down despite the fact it only requires perscriptions to control. the insurance industry is incredibly corrupt, and therefore there are no competing firms who will actually offer it to me. in short, without group benefits or socialized medicine i will end up without health insurance no matter how much i make.

a nation that does not provide basic healthcare, housing, and food for its poor does not qualify as first world, and your condescension and utter greed are morally reprehensible.

its one thing to want the government to "leave you alone" by abolishing victimless crimes, its quite another to greedily horde your money while there are people who are incapable of affording their own perscriptions, let alone major procedures.

In Soviet Russia...

[Glove d'OJ]

"In Communist Romania, internet bullies you!"

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[tibike77]

Well, to be honest, more of a "In communist education, teacher bullies you"... and that creates a sort of bonding between classmates and even schoolmates that you can otherwise only see in the armed forces.
Well, not quite as strong, but the underlying principle is the same: give the kids a "common enemy", one they hate, fear and also respect at the same time, one they are powerless against, so that they might come together in (passive) resistance against.

Jurisdiction

[LordLucless]

The problem with this law isn't it's intent, or even it's procedures. But it's using the wrong system to do the right job.

In the adult world, we have courts to arbitrate situations of libel and slander. Children aren't really held to the same standards as adults unless the circumstances are exceptional, and realistically, they shouldn't be. The courts are an inappropriate system to control this behaviour.

On the other hand, schools are institutions designed (ostensibly at least) for education. They are not designed for settling these sort of disputes. They certainly don't, and shouldn't have, the power to act on things that happen outside school. This sort of legislation is turning schools into mini-governments, ones without all the checks and balances of a real one.

There needs to be controls put on these sorts of actions, but its outside the purview of the schooling system, and the adult court system is overkill. Something needs to be done, but tacking the responsibility onto a system ill-suited for the job isn't going to accomplish anything. If you want the problem to be solved, you'll need to solve it from the ground up, not look for quick fixes.

Why is this necessary??

[ErichTheRed]

I really don't understand why this is a problem. Something like this seems like yet another overprotective law designed to insulate kids from the real world. I'm sure a sizable portion of the Slashdot community got bullied in school (I know I did.) Instead of demanding laws to protect me, I either fought back or ignored it, depending on severity. Now it's text messages or a stupid YouTube video posted about someone that is causing all the furur...how crazy is that?

It really seems like everyone wants to shelter their kids from the real world, especially in the last few years. The whole "danger for children" thing is completely overhyped, and parents are scared to let their kids do anything somewhat dangerous. I say this is the wrong approach. If you don't let your kid mess up and make mistakes, they'll become adult babies who can't take care of themselves.

When I was growing up, they sold toy guns that look very much like real ones. Now they're bright orange and shoot soft Nerf foam. :)

Re:Why is this necessary??

[geekoid]

yes, thats right, shut the hell up and take it, bitch!

Is that really the best way? I think not. I would love to have had a reasonable and open way to have the bully punished.

the real world? I have been in the real world for 25 years, and I ahve yet someone to bully me with violence.

Yes, sometime the 'think of the children' is waved around too nuch, but not in this case.
Children do need protection. Yes they should be allowed to make mistakes, but getting the crap beat out of you in school isn't a mistake, it is an act of violence.

Isn't it harassment?

[Dancindan84]

IANAL, but I thought that harassment included telecommunication (phone). Wouldn't it be better to extend the law to cover computer related communication as well? In fact, I'd be surprised if it already doesn't. This just sounds way too narrow in it's scope.

Great New Way to "Cyberbully"!

[oldmanpanda]

1. Make a legitimate looking Myspace account of person you would like to cyberbully. 2. Direct cyberbullying towards yourself in the name of your subject. 3. Watch as the haplessly ignorant administration lays down the law!

Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge.

[FatSean]

As a scrawny nerd in high school, being bullied by those larger and more popular than I taught me a valuable lesson. I learned to hold grudges and to plan and wait for the best moment to exact my revenge.

In today's society, this seems like a valuable skill to have. The legal system is too expensive for what you get, so you might as well DIY.

Good...IF...

[geekoid]

it is done right.

We want kids to learn the bullying is not an acceptable way to behave, and I think having a method of consequence for cyber bullying is a way to begin changing behaviours, even anonymous behaviors, for the good.

There must be reasonable consequences; jailing or expelling or suspending someone for anything but the most heinous online bullying is unexceptable. The punishment should be handled in the home, and by the removal of extra-cirricular avtivities.

Re:Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

As a scrawny nerd in high school, being bullied by those larger and more popular than I taught me a valuable lesson. I learned to hold grudges and to plan and wait for the best moment to exact my revenge.

Do you mean "never"? Because now you work for them. Those bullies, being stronger than you, climbed the corporate ladder and are now your masters. You, who were dreaming of becoming a respected and well-paid computer programmer, now clean their toilets and empty their waste baskets. That's because they outsourced your dream job to India.

It must hurt a lot, I bet. Do you still dream of revenge? Oh, wait, now I get it: raving on your two-bit blog no-one reads is "revenge" for you.

My, what a bitter life you must live. Have you considered suicide?

There is an Ontario

[geekoid]

in California.

Re:There is an Ontario

[Moraelin]

Duly noted, but TFA is about the Ontario in Canada.

Fantastic

[oicangius]

I hope other countries follow the same line
__
Do you wanna play? Oicangius'blog

Bully problems

[Supercooldude]

I had some bully problems in high school myself. Good times...

Maybe bully posting should be observed instead?

[walterbyrd]

Thugs love to give themselves away. Don't ask me why. For example, they video-tape their bullying. Great, now there is solid evidence. I say let them post, maybe we will find the future gun toting pscyos?

The Columbine killers posted, or emailed, many threats. Those threats were obvious clues, which could have been acted on. Before the killings, the mother of one of the victims even brought the emails to the attention of the school.

Re:Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge

[jedidiah]

Nice fantasyland there.

The average bully is a mental midget that more likely than not has to worry about illegal immigrants pushing him out of the skilled trades or some ditch digging job.

The sort of people that are likely to be the boss of a "geek that holds a grudge" aren't the sort that went around tormenting people in middle school and high school. ...as far as the dream jobs go. Those are precisely the jobs that the Indians can't cope with.

You should stop getting your information from "nerd movies" you see on broadcast TV.

Re: Adult Bullying - more underhanded

[RedneckJack]

Not only there is Slander & Libel but there are political games such as in the worplace. Adult bullying is somewhat different that is it done behind closed doors instead of in your face. In the workplace it can be done by sending "innocent notes" or concerns to higher management to where it is guranteed that you will not get a promotion even though you deserve it and are qualified to get it.

Even worse, those in charge play other games. In my previous job, my manager and a couple of his "butt" boys gave me a lot of hassle and lot of it was underhanded. I was happy to leave that place. I still work for the same company though but a different project. When I was at my previous job, I had my truck stickered with a "tow notice" since in their opinion, it is an eyesore follwed by my manager's call, "Please come to my office" and a butt chewing about the notice. I had to go back to the job site after I left to see my 2nd line manager and my bicycle on the back of my car was vandalized while I was inside. Yet, nothing cannot be done, nothing was witnessed.....

I am getting ready to leave my current job and in fact looking at leaving the company. I got demoted - one of the last things my old manager put in right before before I left but took about 6 months to take effect, that is, took effect 6 months after I left. I am dealing with that mess.

Re:Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

And your revenge is what? Eating their pets now that you are a fat nerd?

Well, in junior high (about 23 years ago.. ugh) we had a kid catch a bully on the way out of a door by himself and cracked him in the knees with a 2x4. It seemed to work pretty well because a) if you catch a bully without his entourage he tends not to be so tough, b) admitting that the little guy got the best of him even with additional hardware is a no-go amongst his peers, and c) if said bully kicks the kid's ass, there just my be a repeat performance.

I'd never been bullied in school (thankfully I was vaguely athletic and able to socialize despite being a geek), but in the army I had some so-called gang banger from DC (he was about 6'2", I'm 5'9") keep screwing with me and trying to steal my gear (dumbass had lost half of his field issue). One night after hours in the field I crawled over to his foxhole with my e-tool and explained to the motherfucker that he had to sleep sometime, and when he did I'd take him out in a most gruesome way. I was serious, too. It was never a problem again.

The danger nowadays is that more kids, for whatever reason, will not just escalate like we did in school with either jumping somebody or using a single blow off of a blunt object, it's that they'll grab a semi-auto and get busy. Which of course is usually final in its outcome. I don't have a solution, as there always have been bullies and there always will be.

Bullying OUTSIDE of School Hours, Eh?

[morari]

Seems a tad like overstepping one's boundaries. Besides, fuck kids that get bullied, they're cowards. Victims of just about any crime bring it upon themselves by allowing themselves to be victimized. Through my entire stint in school I was "bullied" perhaps three or four times. Never by the same person mind you, because shortly into being hassled and finding out that the authorities (regardless of their position--school, etc) are worthless, I simply beat the shit out of the offending kid. Usually it happened right in the middle of class at that. I never did like "meeting outside after school" just so the little punks could not show up. You kick one bully's ass and word spreads. It takes a few years for that effect to wear off before anyone wants to try it again. Sure, you may get suspended for a few days, but so what? Is it more important to conform to the social conditioning that is school or to stand up for yourself as a real human being should?

Re:Bullying OUTSIDE of School Hours, Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. This presumes everyone who is the victim of bullying is capable of doing the same thing you did, physically and psychologically. I take it the disabled were never the targets of bullies in your school. It also seems you never encountered bullies in groups that far outnumber you. Or your groups of friends willing to go out on a limb for you was large enough to insulate you from such. Lucky you, you seem to have come from an egalitarian school where bullies only target people who have a chance of fighting back. You're very lucky. Lots of other people are not so lucky, and had to contend with people who outclassed them by 3 years, 20 lb, and 6 inches of height. I fail to see the educational value in broken noses several contusions. I myself suffered little from physical bullying. This was mostly because I (and my family) had a reputation. But I knew a lot of people who did, and the threat was always there. Discretion is not cowardice, stupidity is not valor. Bravery will not even 5 to 1 odds, or make up for physical handicaps or the gross unevenness in physical stature even a few years of difference in age can make among children. This is not about conformity to social conditioning, this is about protecting people who cannot necessarily protect themselves. Your position is naive at best and cruelly disingenuous at worst.

Re:Bullying OUTSIDE of School Hours, Eh?

[morari]

I doubt the disabled (mentally in this case, as we had no other kind to my knowledge) were often messed with at all in my school, seeing as they rarely strayed from their "special" hall of classrooms which was isolated on the far side of the building. And even if they were, so what? Most of the mentally handicapped don't need to be alive, holding society back and cluttering the gene pool. It sounds harsh, but that's what life is. Protecting people from bullying to this extreme is just another way to make people weak, so that when the time comes, they know how to roll over and pass the lube. Besides, almost every bully I've come across possesses bottom-of-the-barrel intellect anyway and will understand nothing but a swift battering. Now, I would by no means consider myself a tough guy, but I have dealt with being outnumbered (say, one to four or five) and have never enlisted the help of my own friends. More than likely, I was fighting their battles, as most of them were the scrawny weaklings that are oh-so susceptible to bullying. As far as I'm concerned, being a good enough person to have someone else want to defend you is just as good as doing it yourself. Clearly we are not all fighters, and it even leaves a bitter taste for many. But for all those that use height or mass as an excuse, I say bullshit. Sure, that sort of thing matters when you want to fight "honorably", but I doubt it matters much after that guy that's three years older gets his testicles kicked back up inside of his pelvis or a rock to the side of his skull. So yes, this is about social conditioning (just like EVERYTHING school-related is). It's about making people feel weak and helpless so that they have no choice but to rely upon the system for all of their perceived needs and protection. Modern society has done a great job at making the average human timid and scared of speaking out or standing up in any situation, not just physical confrontations.

Re:Bullying OUTSIDE of School Hours, Eh?

[slashdotusername]

I had no idea that Don Imus posted here. Neurological disability covers a much wider field than you realize - many neurologically disabled people have made significant contributions to society. In fact, they're really not behind at all when it comes to having a positive influence on society. Unlike some people (such as yourself, apparently), they tend to tinker and come up with meaningful but unusual ideas instead of just seeking genocide for those different from them. ...and yes, when you suggest that people who are by and large, better than you, are "holding society back and cluttering the gene pool", you are encouraging genocide. I wonder if this counts as invoking Godwin's law - you sure deserve to lose by default. I'll return your ridiculous remarks: I'm not so sure you need to be alive either.

Re:Bullying OUTSIDE of School Hours, Eh?

[morari]

Eugenics (or NATURAL SELECTION, as it would be called without a societal safety net) isn't necessarily genocide. And I'm not so sure that I should be able to live either. I'm not so sure that humanity as a whole should though...

You couldn't be more wrong!

[FatSean]

I'm the one who climbed the corporate ladder and delegate the boring code-work to developers in India and Brazil.

Keep workin' on that MBA...

Re:Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge

[FatSean]

Fif! Fif! FIF!!!

Re:Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge

[GeneralAntilles]

As much malice behind this remark as there probably was, it certainly made me laugh. Why do you never have mod points when you actually want to use them?

I can't believe what I read here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disgusted by the anarchistic tone that has perpetuated itself through the majority of comments here.

Apparently, nobody bothers even reading the summary anymore, let alone the articles, where it is stated that the school has the right to take action if "the incident is believed to have an 'impact on school climate'". A lot of people here seem to think that because the incident doesn't take place during school hours, the school should just suck it up and turn the other cheek. Who cares that something outside of school hours negatively impacts the primary function of the school.

Another lot of people seem to think that the internet automatically shields people from libelous behaviour. It seems that people forget that it's not ok to verbally slam someone if it is untrue or it's ok to spread false vicious rumours about people. I mean, who cares if some high school girl gets the reputation of the town whore because an ex-boyfriend couldn't handle being dumped. That guy has all the right in the world to say whatever he wants about her as long as it's on the internet, right? Just because she becomes so depressed that she fails half her classes, doesn't mean the school shouldn't step in right? Once they find out that the cause of her depression takes place outside of school hours, it's automatically hands off.

Also, school kids are not adults, should not be treated as adults and should not be expected to know what adults are supposed to know. That's why they are in school. Don't automatically assume that everyone has the same rights, because they don't. Considering that I still remember my high school days, I don't want the majority of those people to have adult rights. Kids do need harsher rules than adults because they're more immature. One of the functions of school is to teach students how to conduct themselves in a society with rules, but apparently, if it is an impediment on a student's fun, school should cave in and not do what they're supposed to.

Libel and Slander

[Khammurabi]

IANAL. However I believe it's only considered libel if what they state is false or misleading. Opinions or fact based recountings of actual events or actions is not libel. I also seem to remember that the actual intent of the action is what makes or breaks a slander case. If the intent was to make the public aware of certain actions or behaviors, I don't think it's illegal. If the intent was solely to humiliate the person in public, it is illegal.

I seem to remember hearing the phrase "The truth absolutely protects a person against libel and slander," a while back when my wife had Judge Judy on in the background. (Yes, she watches that from time to time.)

Re:Libel and Slander

[Gorshkov]

I seem to remember hearing the phrase "The truth absolutely protects a person against libel and slander," a while back when my wife had Judge Judy on in the background. (Yes, she watches that from time to time.)

Fact: John is the father of an 8 year old little girl
Fact: John, when he was 13, dated a 12 year old.

Somehow, I don't think telling everybody that John has dated 12 year old girls in spite of the fact that he has an 8 year old himself would protect me in a court of law.

Or how about just be equal?

[phorm]

I'm assuming that you or somebody close to you falls into one of those groups. Why should bullying of gays be any worse than bullying of nerds, hicks, or whatever else? Do you think that being non-gay it's any less damaging?

I fell into the former category (nerd). I can tell you that it's a hard one to escape from. People treat you like shit, so you avoid people. This in turn leads to underdeveloped social skills, which in turns means that... well, you don't handle people well, and the cycle repeats. Luckily for me, I ended up with a girlfriend out-of-town, and learned to get along with women and afterwards people in general, but it was to the point that I wouldn't meet any friends locally, because I was unpopular not only in my own school but even in others (friends of friends). And yes, some people called me gay (I'm not, and I doubt anyone really believe that), so I get the crap-end of that treatment as well.

So tell me, just because I was non-gay, did the bruises heal faster? Do the scars on the back of my head not matter, because I was beaten for being a nerd rather than a homosexual?

Perhaps the issue at hand is not homophobia but that people of a particular group automatically assign themselves an extra persecution-complex as members of that group. There were guys who were pretty obviously gay in school, they didn't really get treated that badly other than a few offhand remarks (no beatings). I work in a school system now, and from what I've seen it looks like issues dealing with either sexual-orientation or racial roots tend to get extra attention... nowhere wants to look anti-gay or anti-[insert race here].

In the end, part of the problem is that there's only so much that can be done, and there's a definitely lack of training in the things that can be done. A school can kick a kid out, but that doesn't stop outside harassment, and the kid doesn't really learn anything because frankly half the time anyhow he (or she) doesn't want to be in school anyways. If it ends up with the parents... well more than half the time there the parents are part of the problem: they're anti-gay, racist, arrogant, or just have this ingrained belief that their children cannot be in the wrong.

I'm not saying that gays do not get discriminated at, but I'm sick and bloody tired of hearing how they're a special case. There's a line between being recognized and being obnoxious, and many people cross it nowadays.

And before you flame me: my cousin is gay, one of my best friends was gay (I've moved so we're not so much in touch anymore), and I've no problem with anyone with any orientation (or even extraordinary combinations of genitalia) so long as they aren't shoving it in my face. Personally, I don't need to know if a particular person is gay or straight. If that person is getting picked on, then the aggressors should be dealt with regardless of that particular criterium. Maybe one of the reasons administrators tread so carefully is because as an issue arises, there are people like you jumping up and down yelling "gay persecution" "anti-homosexualism" "discrimination" ... and nobody wants that particular label either.

Law against physical bullying yes, speech no

[mrraven]

Yep laws against physical bullying are necessary OTH biting speech online is a good way to fight back against physical bullying by humiliating the sort of tards who engage in acts of physical bullying.

If we can't tell the difference between the real physical harm like broken bones caused by physical bullying v.s. reactions in the mind caused by speech then we are in real trouble as a society. The recognition of this difference is why the founding athers made free speech an absolute right while of course allowing for laws limiting peoples right to engage in physical violence. Finally if we blur the distinction between speech and acts it gives more ammo to those who would try to ban violent video games and rap music. Lets not go that way OK?

Re:Bullying taught me the value of delayed revenge

[onkelonkel]

You must have a better class of bullies where you came from. The ones at my school were big, physically violent,and not too smart. The three specific bullies who made my life miserable during high school didn't post nasty comments on myspace, they punched you or slammed you into a locker in passing. I have bumped into all three since I left school; one is a janitor, one is a part time roofer (and full time alcoholic) and one is a fisherman. No CEO's in that group I'm afraid.

No Authority

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Schools do not have any authority to mandate behavior of school property. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Beauracracy doesn't stop bullying

[agentultra]

When I was in high-school, I was bullied a lot. The main problem I faced was that there were so many people participating in it that they got away unpunished for everything; from vandalizing my vehicle to sending me on a trip to the hospital. A friend of mine was put in a coma and nearly paralyzed. The police themselves said they couldn't do anything about it unless they could get names... and even then, the deliberation involved in actually seeking punishment usually results in inaction. I learned a lot from that experience, but almost didn't get the chance to. I wouldn't say I have PTSD, but I still wake up from some startling daydreams and nightmares, many many years later. This cyber-bullying thing however, seems completely silly. I've heard a lot of this mainly coming from school teachers who've noticed nasty things written about them online. What's the difference if it's written on a note in the classroom than in someone's myspace page? The number of people that see how much so and so doesn't like you? What if celebrities suddenly enforced legislation that prevented you from posting mean things about them? That's the numbers game. Same scenario, bigger audience. For teenagers, it's important -- but not that important. Everyone figures out at some point or another (hopefully) that the whole game is about caring. The minute they break through your thick skin -- the minute you care -- you lose. So, I don't see how the kids are affected as much as the teachers who may feel insulted and threatened by the boisterous language of teenagers. We don't need to give ourselves rules to make more criminals out of everyone. There's a limit to the usefulness of such red-tape where due process becomes a barrier to the solution. It just won't serve any productive purpose or get anything done. What we do need is a more pro-active approach to establish our moral guidelines as a community of people. Parents need to be parents. Teachers need to be able to pass on more than just tests and grades. We as a society must be able to hold ourselves accountable for how we present ourselves. Being a sociopath is slowly becoming a mainstream behaviour. If we're not careful, the next generation could very well be an entire generation of self-interested sociopaths. They're just too privelaged to be worried about the current consequences. For the kids I knew in high-school who got away with pretty much everything; the consequences of their actions wasn't even on their moral or ethical radar. It was almost taboo to think about consequences. It was a culture who's anthem was literally, "I don't give a f---." They felt empowered to do anything. We'd like to think that such behaviour is a fringe trait, but it's not anymore and it hasn't been for years.

Nerd's coming out.

[DrYak]

As a scrawny nerd in high school, being bullied by those larger and more popular than I

As a nerd that measured 1m80 since pre-high-school, the bullies taugh me 3 lessons :

I. The bullies are NON-nerd for a good reasons, like never been able to grasp scientific concept. Such as never being able to understand the principle of a lever (a 1m80 foot long nerdy-lever) applied to the dwarf-tossing, and never be overconfident : just because you're flagged "bully" and I'm "nerd" in the pecking order, doesn't necessarily mean I'll be an easy target for you.

[Best part ? Because I'm supposed to be the "Nerd", no "Bully" ever successfully complained to a teacher for being tossed across the playing field]

II. Most nerds are completely socially inept, which usually translate to being also completely unable to produce the adapted reaction to social interaction. This has the added benefit that we completely lack the ability to produce the expected reaction to all interactions bullies try to force on us nerds : we're just immune to most psychological attacks of nerds.

["Oh sorry, I didn't knew I was supposed to cry because I'm naked in front of you..." ... Bullies suddenly run away in case my next reaction in state of nakedness is even less appropriate]

III. We as, nerds, have knowledge of the existence of something called books. We've even read them, we've even learned lot of useful thing. Maybe not how to play what-ever-the-last-"catch-the-ball"-doggy-game is the currently popular. But we've learned about something called psychology.
We know that bullies are not only stupid, but fundamentally insecure. They need to bully just to try to affirm their superiority in the pecking order of the school playground. To reassure themselves, they need two reactions from the other : either the bullied one resists and is defiant, in which case the bully will try to punch him to try to determine which of the two is superior, or the bullied one is inferior, submits and tries to flee. In which case the bully will punch him anyway just to show again who's the boss.

But in no case is the bully ready for some unusual reaction like the bullied target starting asking him if it helps him reassuring him. Specially when done while shouting very strongly, this is destabilizing for the bully. Either the bully will stop puzzled, or will try to answer with the only method he knows (punching - although with much more confused movements), in which case, go back to I.

Note :
For those of us who are shorter and can't exert number I. directly, go learn a sport called "Aikido" which is basically leveraging the adversary's momentum to toss him around. ("Judo" is another similarly useful sport). Your parent will be more than happy to pay some course to have you have sport, in a non-virtual form, outside their basement. Please note that once you acquire some knowledge, it'll take several tosses before the few and appart neurons inside the bully's head start to wave at each other and he realizes that he is ridiculed because each of the last several time he tried to bully the nerd, he was sent flying away.

your faith in governmental process is touching. .

[alizard]

Go learn something about how governmental process really works and that faith will be replaced with stunned shock.

Go to the Thomas site and read the PATRIOT Act to see how "Laws usually aren't worded that vaguely." works out in the real world.

If you don't like research, take a trip to Iraq and hang out in Baghdad for a few days and see government in action.

One of these days

[alizard]

the Canadians going for a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" that can be changed at any time whenever Parliament thinks it convenient rather than something with teeth in it is going to bite them collectively on the ass. Given a right-wing Prime Minister who sucks up to our beloved Fearless Leader, George Bush, probably sooner rather than later.

Re:One of these days

[compro01]

the Canadians going for a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" that can be changed at any time whenever Parliament thinks it convenient rather than something with teeth in it is going to bite them collectively on the ass

hmm. i haven't heard of anyone moving to change the amending procedures for the constitution. where can i get more information about this? as if you're not hyperboling, I've got some letters to write to my MP.

granted, they do have the "notwithstanding clause", but using that to end-run around the courts is generally political suicide.

Former bullied to lawmakers: Keep out.

[Sj0]

Lawmakers have no place in the classroom. They don't understand children, they don't understand the classroom, they don't understand how to govern people who don't have any rights. It would be like teachers trying to balance the federal budget.

Makes me glad I voted against that pinhead Maguinty in the last election, pulling shit like this.

The Imus Factor

[corespray]

You don't suppose that Ontario might be driven by the now infamous 'Imus Factor'--do ya? As we scamper through life the challenges we face either damage us irreparably or make us stronger (present generation excluded). The present generation, however, are slowly but ever so surely being blanketed by legislation intended to protect them from just about everything that might tarnish their little psyches. This reply is not intended to defend the foolish and childish comments that Imus made while on the public airways, but introducing legislation intended to protect the poor defenseless little listeners,blogers and surfers from WORDS is a bit much---don't ya think?

Re:The Imus Factor

[slashdotusername]

I'm not sure how much you know about Imus, but his issues are more than just words. He has openly advocated violence towards minorities in the past. He and his wife have attempted to marginalize people with actual difficulties - they've engaged in heavy shouting matches to mislead people into believing that corporations are at fault for a variety of attributes that are simply the way people were born. They have also openly advocated genocide of the disabled and atypical - and again, they merely shouted at and ignored everyone who tried to correct them. Don and Diedre Imus are terrible scum and bullies of the worst sort, but words aren't their only problem. These people have openly tried to promote violent and unethical behaviors. ...but this is America in 2007. Dismissing the handicapped as "ill because of irresponsible companies" and funding hate groups won't get your show canceled, but one high-profile comment referring to black girls improperly is seen as a disaster. I was glad to see Imus go, but his wife is still using bigoted epithets to sell books and wares on plenty of other shows. This isn't about "psyches" - this is about people like the Imuses forcing some of us to fear for our lives. You don't have much time left to focus on learning when you have to waste hours on end trying to stop bullies like these from putting you in danger. As far as cyber-bullying is concerned, though, schools would do better by asking that kids don't expose themselves online - teach responsible behavior, teach how to "block" somebody on popular services, discuss who you should give your e-mail address or screen names to, etc. Coddling isn't needed, but responsibility is needed, and a way to stop those trying to incite violence is definitely needed.

Childhood

[ReiDragon]

I agree that some parts of bullying should be controlled, but the idea that children cannot deal with virtual bullying is a huge insult. I can understand changing policies about physical bullying. I can almost understand changing policies about verbal bullying. But having to concentrate on cyber-bullying would just be a huge waste of time and money. Think about this, how many times have each of you had a negative comment directed towards you? For the younger slashdotters like myself who had the internet during school, how many of those were from friends and classmates? If your school had to investigate, suspend, or expell each of those persons, how much time and money would that have taken away from the school that could have been put towards new books or other improvements? Yes, deal with physical and verbal bullying, but don't even try to deal with cyber-bullying. It would take far too much time and far too much money to even begin dealing with it.

never mind. . .

[alizard]

I'd seen the Charter, but never in the full context of the Constitution Act . . . if I read it correctly, it's not all that different from the US setup for amending the Constitution.

Though my opinion on the issue probably won't be worth that much until I wind up in Canada myself, either for political reasons or more likely, because for an American, it's the most reasonable offshoring destination, especially for R&D.