Slashdot Mirror
NY Senators Want To Make Free Speech A Privilege
An anonymous reader writes "A group of four NY state senators have written a paper suggesting that free speech should be looked upon as a government granted privilege rather than a right. They're specifically concerned about cyberstalking and cyberbullying, and are introducing legislation to make both of those against the law. Among other troubling concepts, they argue that merely 'excluding' someone from a group is a form of cyberbullying."
by this attempt, and expect restitution for their callous behavior and pissing on the Bill of Rights.
In Canada, we do not have free speech in absolute terms like our southern counterparts. The difference between us and what those senators are suggesting is that we have a Charter of Rights which protects us from any attempt of gov't approved censorship. It can be annoying at times, but it keeps the holocaust deniers at bay.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
insert government moderated speech here
really ? this is outright violation of first amendment of the constitution your country is based upon. these representatives can propose and attempt such a thing. when does the 'right to revolt against tyranny' in your constitution gets invoked ? never ?
Read radical news here
Tree of liberty, blood of patriots, permanent freedom, temporary safety, et cetera.
(I await the SA with bated breath)
What is next not voteing for someone or saying that you will vote for the other guy is a form of bullying as well?
Those god damn Republicans continuing to erode our rights like this, first Bush and the Patriot Act and now . . . what? They're Democrats? Oh, well then, carry on.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
If excluding someone from a group is cyberbullying and cyberbullying is illegal, then that would presumably apply to all committees, press conferences, political funding bodies, etc. Right? Or is it only groups out of favour with the politicians in power who can't exclude?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They spent World War II fighting the Nazis. Then they spent the Cold War fighting the Communists. Now they are becoming them. Fucking bastard asshole bags of shit. Hang'em high.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they probably didn't campaign on an anti-Bill of Rights platform.
The quote given is taken completely out of context, infacT the report notes on the page previous that
The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like
HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!
Vote for me or I'll cry and then you'll be sorry!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Wow, exclusion is a form of bullying. Post-modernity gone amuck.
The standing precedent is that the First Amendment is really just a law against "prior restraint." In other words, the courts have decided that, the First Amendment just says the government can't stop you from speaking. However, they can punish you for your speech after you do it!
I think most normal people would find this interpretation of the First Amendment as ridiculous. But guess what? It is the precedent that our courts have upheld.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Just to drive it home, since the summary and article avoid it scrupulously, this is a Democratic party proposal from an 'Independent Democratic Conference'.
Not because I think the Republicans are any better, but people seem to need reminding that both major political parties hate the Bill of Rights and love short sighted dangerous 'fixes' for whatever they think today's social panic is.
All the article links to is a report which is in all caps, and is very hard to read. Here's the official copy, as linked to by the NY State Senate. http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/final%20cyberbullying_report_september_2011_0.pdf
I find the whole fixation on "cyberbulling" to be stupid and offensive.
No one's forcing these kids to commit suicide. No one is killing them. But more importantly, no one is helping them deal with the emotional/verbal abuse either.
Being emotionally/verbally abused or bullied is a part of life. It's GOING to happen. It sucks, but that's how it is. The correct solution is for adults to help kids learn how to deal with it, not find ways to make it illegal.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
these people are not ordinary citizens, and they intend to make this into a law.
Read radical news here
There's no story here. Here's the original report, from the Volokh Conspiracy, a card-carrying rightwing blog. That enough should discredit the story. Second, the entire point of this blog posting is to point out that the politicians involved were all Democrats, something the Techdirt article (correctly) discards from the narrative as irrelevant. So, this is just a hit piece, no story other than "scary Demoncrats", everybody can go on to the next article.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This never works.. just try it and watch what the rest of the country does to them. If anyone in office is ignorant or dumb enough to try this they should be immediately thrown out of office for violating the 1st and attempting to corrupt laws that we have in place they should not lay fingers on... They should be lucky to consider themselves in office... etc... If a party doesnt like the Bill or constitution, they should be reconstructed.
Does proposing trolling be outlawed count as trolling?
Senators Want To Make Free Speech A Privilege 52
Why does it not surprise me that the senators are all Democrats?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
They (the US) spent HALF the second world war fighting the Nazis, the other half selling them computers to help round up the jews. The gov of the US has a long history of helping bad men rule innocent people with an iron fist. The only thing new here is that they're doing it to YOU.
Dear Senators, you should be locked up for saying that. Now how do you feel? Sincerely, somebody who didn't get an F in high school civics and who would like very much to see your transcripts.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Did the senators not take an oath to uphold the constitution? What is wrong with these people?
The senators are Democrats and it's a living Constitution!
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If you look at what our government has done over the past decade, it seems as though most people don't give a shit and will put up with almost any infringement of their rights as long as they can post on Facebook.
I think I'm going to use that as my next status update.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I'd say this is just the regular mouth-pieces 'thinking of the children' again, but this takes it to a new level. Essentially, any 'negative remark, post, and upload' against an online profile becomes 'dangerous' and subject to being stifled, by law? So much for /., or every other forum moderating itself.
Couple this with the Free Speech Zones, currently being used outside Political rallies, and you have a very real retraction of both the boundaries of the physical right to express free speech, and your free speech in the digital realm. It's quite obvious that restriction of opposing ideas is what this is really about. Call it what you want, anti-cyber-bullying law, or profile protection online, but you and I both know this kind of thinking doesn't restrict itself to the well-defined addages it is put forth under. We all know this will be used for the general speech, online and off, that elected officials, law enforcement bodies, and anyone with money, don't want to hear about.
Now take it one step further to the 'Occupy Wall Street' camp. Putting the whole purpose of it aside for a moment, does a law like the proposed put organizing camps like them in the cross-hairs? Why would they be exempt?
How much content online 'really is' what this targetted legislation is about? How many forums are public, at will acceptance, yet run by Corporations, non-profits, or private individuals?
To me, all of this strikes as fear of technology and communication. Is it as recognizable to you as it is to me that the public, albeit probably a bit misguided in content, is getting acces to more information than ever before? Do those running the country really want a 'well-informed' public to be at the voting booth? Like most legislation, this is about power. Who has it, how is it controlled, and who has more to lose.
The only real question you should be asking is, 'is this a small step forward for America in general, or a step backward'?
Though I try to avoid quoting movies, one does feel appropriate here:
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people
It seems fear really is turning on those who have the power to wield the kind of control they wish. Hopefully, this absurdity will stop before it gains momentum, and more forums than this one will show the adequate light to the insanity that is being proposed once again, upon a once great nation.
Making a law to tell people what they can and can't say online will not solve the problem. They'll just go back to doing it in person. Writing letters, calling, stabbing, murdering, pushing people around. As long as different people continue to be born and exist, this is *not* a solvable problem. You can only mitigate it - and you don't do that by infringing the rights of everyone else. And if we're going to go by this route, the government (at least for now and on paper) is still of, by, and for the people. Thusly, I grant myself the right to free speech and do the same for my fellow citizens and government members...and heartily say "FUCK you, NY Senators." And have a nice day.
The solution to Holocaust deniers is not to stifle everyone's freedom of speech. Let them say their piece, then let the rest of us refute, rebuke, and roundly mock.
Agreed.
Better to address it out in the open rather than try to sweep it under the rug.
Also, I suspect that trying to censor conspiracy theorists helps fuel their paranoia/persecution complex, and helps bring them undue sympathy.
I suspect there are a few actual conspiracies amongst all the crazy BS such as Holocaust denial.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
there is no relevance of declaration of independence to the basis of your culture or nation ?
Read radical news here
The culprits are:
Jeffrey Klein
Diane Savino
David Carlucci
David Valesky
They of a growing movement to end democracy. See, for example, North Carolina Governor Beverly Purdue's suggestion that federal elections be suspended. James Taranto provides other examples.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
They're specifically concerned about cyberstalking and cyberbullying, and are introducing legislation to make both of those against the law.
Aren't stalking and (large-scale-) bullying illegal in any context already? How does "cyber" make them any different?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
A private citizen excluding someone they don't want to deal with from their groups is bullshit "cyber-bullying".
Excluding your constituents from the right of free speech is fucking fascism.
No sig for you!!
They can't possibly go into Africa claiming there some danger there to poor innocent wesatern souls. China is too big so the next enemy is the citizen. After all a free citizen is a danger to a closed society,
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The problem is that free speech is not defined clearly anywhere and so it's easy for some to come up with a definition that would allow harm thus indirectly proving that free speech is bad.
My definition of free speech might not match most of the currewnt legal implemenations but i think the intuitive way would be this:
When two parties, each willingly, exchange information than that exchange is protected by free speech.
Wich means that the only basis that can make communication illegal is the lack of consent from a party, not the content of communication. So stalking and spamming is illegal, but simply writing bad things about someone is not, for by visiting the page with said comment the other party implied consent. They were in no way forced to view it.
And yes, I do think that libel and similar laws are stupid. And as a big supporter of free speech, I despise anyone attacking it. It's sad that Anonymous reverted back to trolling, they could be useful now.
Bullying has been around since time immemorial, and will be so for the foreseeable future - it's part of the darker side of human nature. The only difference today is that now its "cyber", utilizing digital tools that have a potentially greater reach. There are other options here besides curtailing free speech - cyberbullying is one of those things that should be handled internally by the school. (And if parents are involved in said matter, then refer it to the police under existing laws: wouldn't some of the child endangerment laws imply under the category of verbal/emotional harm?).
What's next, are they going to ban the kids on the block from forming the "No Homers" club, or equivalent.
Homer: But you let in Homer Glumplich.
Homer G.: [pops head out window] Hyuck hyuck!
Boy: It says no Homer_s_. We're allowed to have one.
Homer: Oh...
They don't even know what bullying is! Cyber bullying, BooFuckingHoo. Grow up, and stand up for yourself. What ever happened to words can never hurt me?
For the record I was bullied constantly through Junior high, and it only stopped when I decided I had had enough, and beat the shit out of my chief tormenter in front of the entire school. (At an assembly.)
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
If you are serious about putting restrictions on Free Speech, the very first one should be jailing anyone who speaks about wanting to mess with the 1st.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...or risk going to jail for excluding me from the insightful.
This goes way back...
They were one of the colonies that resisted the vote for independence.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Because what usually results from rules like this is the indirect results are more likely to be what people fall victim too. There will be a good chance of prosecutions versus people who did not know the audience was a protected age range and there will be ambushers using this law. Throw in adults hit with the law by protected age people claiming offense when none was directed towards the affected group, yet the affected group claims offense.
So your basically stating that certain age groups should feel its okay that government tells them when they make exercise their first amendment rights? Because that is a very wrong path to start going down. Hell, we have seen this age group recently expanded to 26 for health care considerations, do you truly expect that once one foot is in the door that you can close it?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
These are the fascist assholes who want to restrict your natural rights:
Jeffrey D. Klein, 34th District (Bronx) jdklein@senate.state.ny.us
Diane J. Savino, 23rd District (Staten Island) savino@senate.state.ny.us
David Carlucci, 38th District (Nanuet) carlucci@nysenate.gov
David J. Valesky, 49th District (Syracuse) valesky@senate.state.ny.us
Let them hear from you.
In so far as they would consider abolishing freedom of association: they are going against their oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States.
It suggests they don't consider their promise to the public when discussing or possibly deciding legislation. It suggests they think of themselves as rulers instead of public servants.
For example, if a corporation were to discuss defrauding the public as a way to solve a particular problem; people would generally be upset on finding out.
With a company you might have a choice whether to do business with them. But with government, since they have a monopoly on force (fines, prison, etc), everyone is subject and there is no other (safe) choice. People who don't have a choice about something they disagree with: well, they sometimes resort to more physical methods of argument
I don't advocating violence over something that's just being discussed: but it's perfectly reasonable why threats of violence would be a reaction in this instance.
Just another case of think of the children. Try to get your law passed because our children are in danger otherwise.
The Citizens United decision will be overturned? No? Didn't think so. Free speech is a corporation's right, but only a privilege for citizens. I always wondered why Oprah got sued for talking about beef, so I guess this explains a few things...
No rights, no matter how precious, are without responsibilities. You can't hold up a white flag, then shoot soldiers as they lower their fire-arms. The more people we allow to abuse these rights, the sooner they will cease to exist.
We need to fight to protect Democracy. It might shock certain people, but fighting abuse is part of that fight. I leave it up to the smart people of Slashdot to propose ways of combating said abuse without eroding the rights of people who act in good faith.
In Australia we dont have the same concept unilateral free speech. Our constitution gives us the right to free political speech, but not free personal speech. Personally I think it works very well.
First elected official that even TRIES to pass this, should be taken out and shot for treason! What these pinheads don't understand, because, they do not understand the Constitution, is that the bill of rights isn't rights "granted" by congress, but rights granted by god, and for which congress has NO RIGHT taking away. THIS is what happens when you water down the teaching of history, filling it with lies, distortions and other liberal and politically correct garbage. If you give these blowhards the leeway to "tinker" around with the Constitution, before you know it, the 1st & 2nd will be completely stripped away, and the others will follow.
The problem here is that these politicians are proposing that we further restrict what is considered free speech, and that they are advocating that free speech be viewed as a privilege rather than a right. What different does it make what the original blog said, considering what the politicians themselves said?
Palm trees and 8
Christ. To get to the original source article, you have to click links through two different intermediate sites, one of which is the Volokh Conspiracy, which while always interesting is not exactly an unbiased source.
Remember kids, when you get your news from Slashdot, you're getting it fourth-hand. It's good to read the news, it protects your rights as a citizen. Kinda like a condom. But do you really want to protect yourself with a fourth-hand condom?
Anyway, on to the meat of the matter: the original article doesn't clearly come down on the side of the scare-quote that's being passed around. It says, IN ALL CAPS FOR GOD'S SAKE, that some people think free speech rights should never be limited, while others think a less extreme approach, with exceptions for grievous harm to others, is needed. Its tone does seem to suggest it favors the latter, which is disturbing, but as an "oh my God these guys want to burn the Constitution" freakout document, it lacks a little punch.
Obviously these senators aren't superheroes because, well, common sense is a super power.
Perhaps pass a resolution saying that senators must possess an IQ higher than before being considered for office?
When the, ahem, elected representatives of the cult of government go wayward and want to impose more violations of our Natural rights by the State cult members it's time to vote them out of office. It would be better to toss em into jail for life for their criminal attempt to subvert the rights of free people, but getting them out of office would be an acceptable first step. Impeach them.
I take a hard line against every cult member of the cult of government that violates the public trust by violating the rights of human beings in their jurisdiction. Toss them in prison with ten times the period of punishment that non-cult members would get.
I think not
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
The degree to which congress takes the constitution lightly is frankly appalling. I mean, fine... you want to change the first amendment? See change the constitution. We have a process for that. Think you'll get enough people to agree with that idea? Of course not. Which means congress CANNOT F"ING TOUCH IT. They don't have that right, that power, or that authority. It is not in their purview to change the constitution without going through the proper process.
The fact that they do this in various ways all the time is irrelevant. It's all illegal. Against the law. Invalid. Now maybe this makes me sound like some crazy radical living in a mobile home in the desert with stockpiles of spam waiting for the big one. But either the constitution means something or it doesn't. And if it doesn't then where exactly does congress get the power to pass laws in the first place. The constitution is where not only their power but the president's power flows from. Undermine it and basically everything becomes illegitimate. Now tell that to a the police or an unsympathetic judge or whatever and they'll laugh at you while violating those rules.
There are governments that are based on force. It is just that the US is supposed to be a Republic. A government ruled by law. And every time the constitution is taken lightly and they get away with it we have instead a government not of law but of force. Where rather then ethics and rights the judgment of who can do what is simply whoever has the money and guns to make it happen.
That is a type of tyranny. And while it might seem to be an exaggeration to go off on this tangent from some stupid opinion from some stupid legislators it's all related. Because if they gave a DAMN about the constitution they'd not suggest such an idea unless they were serious about amending the constitution. They're clearly not. They don't try to amend it anymore. They try to ignore it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Sick of these Liberals who want to destroy our Constitution, God gave us those rights,Not Men or Some piece of paper. I say, If you want it or think you can take it, Bring it on. I beleive you will be tried one day and swing from a noose for your Treasonist acts against this nation and all Americans.
Ahh...smart people.
The people that end up standing in their own shit because they don't understand how septic systems work.
The people who have no idea where or how Arugula came to be on the supermarket shelf.
The people who don't even know how to open the hood of their car let alone do anything one it's open.
The ones who brought us credit default swaps and that wonderful multi-volume I.R.S. tax code.
Yeah....smart people..don't have much use for them.
I'm afraid that the SCOTUS might innately disagree - as would be their natural place to, in addressing unconstitutional legislation, amiright?
Nannystate, onwards! Until we are *all* the prisoners to the Nanny's great whim! Share that obsessive-compulsive behaviorism, people, that's just what the sovereign nation needs - not!
/ While listening to the Thomas Jefferson Hour. It may have affected my choice of vernacular.
I was bullied too. His name was E_ B_ and he was one of those kids who'd been held over into eighth grade, for like five years or something. He was in choir, I suspect that was part of his M.O.
Years later, I grew up. Sure, I might spend some short time in jail afterwards, if I ever saw his ugly mug, today, but that's another story. I grew up, and I don't blame the state for that it went that way, in the first place. I think I'd be grossly misplacing the real responsibility of the matter, if I would blame the state for what was absolutely no fault of the state, and what is not the state's responsibility to address - beyond the rudiments of basic criminal law, and it never went that way, on his part or mine ;)
The state's real responsibilities do not include: Nanny-bullying me on health matters; nanny-bullying my parents on how to raise me; nanny-bullying the public about how to treat me, in any range beyond simply enforcing beyond the basic and socially mandatory matters of criminal law.
So, now I'm like, all, "Hey state, buzz off!" Those legislators really need to get over their own agendas, I suspect - though they would certainly not have a monopoly on agendas, in the legislature.
/ Cracking a new can of Brawndo, glibly raising a toast to the rising Consumerocracy
[o/t] Man, when's that magic mod hat arrive in the mail, already? >><<
The bullying they're concerned about mostly involves gay kids. From the paper: "Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14-year old boy from Williamsville, near Buffalo, NY, took his life after what his parents claim was yeas of bullying because of struggles with his sexuality." "Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old Rutgers student, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after two classmates secretly taped him during a sexual encounter with a man and broadcast it over the web."
One of the papers cited is "LGBT and Allied Youth Responses to Cyberbullying: Policy Implications" On page 128 (the paper starts at journal page 115), after discussing how big a problem this is for gay youth, they remark "This finding somewhat contradicts a study by Smith, et al. (2008) on cyber- bullying in secondary school, which did not factor the characteristics of sexual identity and gender identity into the equation. Instead, they found that secondary school students, in general, recommended as their best coping strategies in coun- tering cyberbullying both blocking and avoiding messages, and telling someone when they were being cyberbullied." The key point here is that relatively simple avoidance strategies work for hetrosexual kids, while gay kids have much worse problems. They often can't get help from their parents. "Family rejection is often more feared than victimization or harassment. ... a significant percent of LGBT youth are forced to leave home
once their sexual or gender identity is questioned by family members, and approx-
imately 20-40% of all homeless youth are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender".
So this really isn't a free speech problem at all. It's a parenting problem.
As someone who actually studied human psychology, I'm in complete agreement with lawmakers in part where "exclusion from group is a form of bullying". This is a well studied area, and it's widely known and proven that younger boys tend to bully physically. Girls mainly bully by excluding from groups. The bullying factor in this type results in a much deeper trauma then physical assault, and often leaves significant mental issues for life. This is because humans are social and biologically tribal creatures which is especially true for young women who form small groups and punishing through exile from their group.
You don't have to go far to see how this works. Every young girl will have her "circle of friends" who will on the surface have same tastes, same desires. In reality many of them are just conforming to peer pressure, but fear of exile from the group for being different is a very strong driving factor.
Now I'm not a psychiatrist, but this stuff doesn't require a MD. This is highschool/general university psychology level material. To attempt to ridicule it is to show total ignorance of the subject at hand.
Absolutely! I have always thought that it was just wrong for the New York chapter of the KKK to exclude black people.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Won't somebody please think of the children?
Instead of shielding our kids from all the world's baddies... expose them. Teach them how to cope.
Back before the days of "cyber" bullying, we had... wait for it... regular bullying.
We taught our kids how to stand up for themselves.
Instead of protecting the children, why not focus on educating the parents on preparing their kids for real life?
What's next, curtailing my right to flip you off in traffic? That'll go over great in Boston...
Something witty.
They believe that the right to keep and bear arms is, uniquely in the Bill of Rights, a collective right rather than an individual one.
If they can have that interpretation for the 2nd, why not the 1st?
The press generally has the populace believing the Democrats are the party that wants to protect your rights, and the Republicans are the party that wants to restrict your rights. This mistaken belief gets them votes.
This shows the true nature of the beast. They BOTH want to restrict your rights, they just have different areas they want to do it in.
I got fed up, snapped, and tried to kill a bully using classroom equipment at hand that could be quickly "weaponized."
Fellow classmates stopped me just short of my target, but I was never picked on after that, not even a mean look.
Oh, and do it when the teacher is out of the room.
Defamation and false advertising are civil matters. Plus, corporations not being completely real people in law (yet), their speech is restricted.
Copyright has constitutional basis, plus Fair Use considers where free speech encroaches on the constitutional monopoly of copyright.
What we're talking about here is criminalization of speech, of opinions. We have very specific tests for attempts to restrict freedom of speech, such as the "imminent lawless action" test, and what these people are talking about fit none of them.
There was this girl back in high school that excluded me from carnal relations. I know she was having relations with several guys. Can I sue? She discriminated against me.
A group of New York senators just made themselves the next target of anonymous. Think of the childrenz... I don't need the nanny state thinking of my child. The state can concentrate on it's own affairs thank you. This is just bullshit and I hope they all lose their jobs.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
... they asserted that fundamental rights are "privileges" granted by government.
Getting the relationship between government and citizen inverted is a Democrat specialty.
Republicans and Democrats are evil in different ways.
"Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty."
That's the first definition I came across. There were a few others, but I think this puts it in perspective.
The obscenity exception means "You can say anything you like - anything at all. It's no holds barred! Unless we don't like it."
Which is to say, the obscenity exception makes a mockery of free speech, in ways that laws against fraud or incitement to violence do not.
When will these morons figure out you can't legislate out bullying. There's only one solution to bullying and that is standing up for ones self in some way. Making a law for every little thing doesn't solve anything. One would think they would have learned that with everything from speed limits and graffiti to prohibition and the war on drugs. Then again, this is NY senators who thing that simply having more gun laws will stop gun crime, and we see how well that has worked out for them as well.
these assholes should not only be fired, but publicly rebuked for even bringing this anti-American bullshit up in an open session
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
The truly humorous part of all this banter is that any of it is taken seriously.
This would be true if the definition of date rape were to continue to shift the way you suggest; but it won't, because the problem with date rape is mostly an epistemological one: many, perhaps even most, date-rape and date-rape-like scenarios include a girl who has been raped and a guy who hasn't raped anyone, because they have different definitions of what constitutes rape.
The scenario you posit, "her feeling uncomfortable," is not a position advocated by anyone who I am aware of across the entire field of rape jurisprudence or literature. You are taking a position far beyond that being advocated for and saying that the policy shift will necessarily consider to that extreme, which is a very weak argument.
Your idea that it is "about time the girls started taking some of the responsibility for the outcome of the evening" is also a misplaced concern. Historically, women take almost all of the responsibility for the outcome of the evening. It is only with some of the newer definitions of rape to include Date Rape (which is one of the most common kinds, to be fair) that men have been asked to take responsibility for the outcome of the evening. They may have been prosecuted before, but any rape prosecution used to be, and to some extent still is, about whether the victim deserved it. It's not supposed to be about that, but most of the case is about trying to make the woman seem to be not the victim, but someone who somehow invited rape.
The problem is how far the pendulum should swing, and the problem is how do we deal with a divide where, under the same circumstances, women believe that an event constitutes rape and that there was no consent whereas men believe that there was consent and therefore no rape?
You have to decide, as a policy matter, what standards you want there. For centuries the pendulum has been in favor of the alleged rapist's version of events. Now it's shifting the other way. Sometimes it will clearly shift too far. But that doesn't justify keeping it where it is forever.
I realize this is a very touchy subject, where many men innocently believe they're not guilty and many women are as certain that they are, and where people are legitimately concerned about women (or men) being unable to come forward because of fear that society will hold the victim responsible for the rape. But it's not a simple question.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
If the law literally says that exclusion from a group is bullying (As in it doesn't say just cyber) and, therefore, illegal then I can think of a few fun applications. You can't keep me from voting as a congressman in congress, because that is exclusion from a group! You can't not hire me at that job because I'm unqualified, because that is exclusion from a group! You can't keep confidential government documents confidential... etc. If it does say just cyber, still some interesting implications. Web sites that require you to pay before being able to post, betas that require invites, etc. could all be considered bullying. Very unlikely suing about any of these things would bear any fruit, of course. Still fun to think about.
Links, please. Of course we have an issue of level of coexistence. I take it you mean absolutely equal, all considerations for one given to the other? All rights respected? Remember, Rauf does not believe in American freedom of speech.
It's not the Saudi king who decides, but the Muslim religious leaders.The king is not all powerful, and must bow to their decisions on many issues or risk a revolt. If you believe a church, synagogue and temple should be able to stand in Mecca, you will be the first Muslim I've met with that opinion.
Very considerate of those Christians. Ever heard of a church in the basement of a mosque? Even Rauf doesn't believe in reciprocating in that manner.
ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED.
HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD
There is no "general protection" for speech in the first amendment, there is absolute protection:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How are they considering the law as it is written?
The first amendment guarantees the right to say anything you want to say in whatever forum you choose. What it does not guarantee is freedom from the consequences of that speech. Nobody is going to defend a person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater with an appeal to the first amendment; ditto people who slander, libel, mislead, deceive, harrass, or intimidate other people with their speech. As my constitutional law professor suggested, think of the amendment as protecting a bucket, and think of speech as the contents being carried in the bucket. The bucket is sacrosanct -- you can put whatever you want in it, and it can be taken anywhere and dumped, but once the contents spill out, they no longer have the protection provided by the bucket. If you take a bucket full of lies and threats to a tea party rally, and spill it out there, where nobody has a problem with it, you are golden. But if you take the same bucket and spill it on the web, expect to be challenged in court.