Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

1. Propose a punishment you think is proportional.

2. Now do it again, except this time the slur was posted at midnight on Instagram.

3. Now do it again, adding the fact that the victim elsewhere spread the rumor that the perpetrator, a seventh grader, blew a guy in the bathroom.

What you are feeling now is how I felt when posting about buying health care and running a small business and Ty or GGG tell me I am wrong because they've read a blog that says otherwise.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Good analogy. You'll note that even today, there's no prohibition on a spouse psychologically tormenting the other spouse. The law draws the appropriate line: Not our problem until it involves physical violence.

Right. After all, a 15-yo girl can always divorce her school.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Whoa whoa whoa. I want to be clear about the real estate I'm defending. I am not suggesting that we must tolerate bullying, verbal or physical. I am saying that we cannot prevent it with the tools we have in our society. The fact that this distinction is so quickly lost is evidence of my argument that the modern American mind cannot be satisfied with the punishment of evil. Evil has to be disempowered.

You also seem to be saying that there is nothing we can do to reduce it. Is that really your position?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't know about you, but in my high school, way-back-when, I don't recall any of the gay kids being picked on. That would've been considered the ultimate in "dick moves" that would have branded one a social pariah.

If you're telling me that a majority of kids today think picking on a kid because he's gay is alright, or that they'd turn their head the other way when someone did it, I'm calling bullshit.

The media promotes outlier instances of intolerance. They are not the rule. And they certainly aren't a basis for legislative changes.

I have no idea where or when you went to high school, but what you describe is nowhere close to what my school was like.

As for the nephew I referenced, he's in high school now. He lives in an area heavy in evangelicals -- you know, the "Jesus loves you, unless you're a fucking fag" kind of people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Why should the school setting, where kids are compelled to be present 5 days a week, be considered less significant and less subject to "laws to make general verbal and psychological abuse illegal", than the employment setting?

Because the actors are minors. Which is the same reason we don't try juveniles in adult courts.

I understand Atticus' frustration that schools get blamed and get held liable where there was nothing you could do. But that calls for some limitations on liability, not for a do-nothing, kids-will-be-kids attitude.

It calls for bars on liability claims against school officials for intervening to stop bullying. A parent of a bully should be barred from whining and hiring some bottom feeder to sue when the teachers shames the little bastard in front of other students for picking on a weaker kid.

Hell, many people were similarly frustrated that a major corporation or law firm could be held liable because an officer, partner, or even a low-level employee engaged in boys-will-be-boys activity (that was retermed, and correctly termed, sexual harassment).

Again, they're adult boys. Apples and okra.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

1. Propose a punishment you think is proportional.

2. Now do it again, except this time the slur was posted at midnight on Instagram.

3. Now do it again, adding the fact that the victim elsewhere spread the rumor that the perpetrator, a seventh grader, blew a guy in the bathroom.

1. Public apology by the bully, to the collected student body.

2. Not the school's business. Off property is off property.

3. Send letter to "victim":

"Dear Victim,

Upon review of the incident, it appears you and the alleged bully have been engaged in an ongoing battle of slurs. No punitive action will be taken at this time. If this continues on school property or during school events, you may both be subjected to [insert punishment here].

Caveat emptor,
The Administration

cc: Bully; Both sets of students' parents"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This is why you are full of shit -- you start with the notion that the only issues are these extremes.

If a kid calls another kid a faggot once, I really don't care. I care when a group of kids threaten, harass, routinely slam on Facebook, etc. All things that fall short of a physical attack.

We cannot pass laws prohibiting people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook. The only applicable laws are those for defamation. You have offered an incurable situation which proves Atticus's point regarding the futility of many efforts to stem bullying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Right. After all, a 15-yo girl can always divorce her school.

Again, this is curable in the school setting with administration intervention. Beyond that, it is incurable. It can be shamed, and this will work as a disincentive. But there is no form of punishment that can be applied to stop a bully from calling someone a slut or faggot on Facebook, Twitter, etc. outside school.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We cannot pass laws prohibiting people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook. The only applicable laws are those for defamation.

Sorry to get sucked back into this, but this is not true. It is an untrue statement, just as I suspect it is untrue that your high school was the one place in the history of the fucking world where anti-gay slurs resulted in ostracization of the slur-speaker by a noble and united band of wise-beyond-their-years students.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Sorry to get sucked back into this, but this is not true. It is an untrue statement, just as I suspect it is untrue that your high school was the one place in the history of the fucking world where anti-gay slurs resulted in ostracization of the slur-speaker by a noble and united band of wise-beyond-their-years students.

We could pass those laws. And they'd be stupid, futile, and unconstitutional.

California's new anti revenge porn law is a great example of well meaning idiocy. How is the state going to prove a photo was uploaded with the intent of revenge? And to the extent it may be intent-neutral (strict liability), how will it not violate the First Amendment?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We could pass those laws. And they'd be stupid, futile, and unconstitutional.

California's new anti revenge porn law is a great example of well meaning idiocy. How is the state going to prove a photo was uploaded with the intent of revenge? And to the extent it may be intent-neutral (strict liability), how will it not violate the First Amendment?

No, there are many laws that currently exist that prevent "people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We cannot pass laws prohibiting people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook. The only applicable laws are those for defamation. You have offered an incurable situation which proves Atticus's point regarding the futility of many efforts to stem bullying.

Why do I get the feeling you sat on a jury that awarded damages to the Phelps?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The harm is that we've already got more than enough idiotic interference on the part of law enforcement and government. We're just getting to the point where govt is realizing it has no business telling people they can't smoke pot, and should not be deciding who can and cannot marry. And so given these strides in paring down its officious interactions with the public regarding these matters, it should now start regulating other private behaviors?

Private behaviors? Are you stoned? If bullying is private behavior, what constitutes public behavior?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The red tape created by endless do-gooder laws is endless. It hampers our economy. It creates needless bureaucratic work. And it's all counterproductive. The more you teach people to ask the govt for intervention, the more they'll lose the ability to handle the problem on their own.

Ha! You're nuts. Laws that address bullying hamper our economy. I don't think you even know what you're talking about half the time anymore.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

No, there are many laws that currently exist that prevent "people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook."

Is the secret service still harrassing you about that? I told them you were just joking, and that I didn't know anything about a purported gun collection.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

A colon followed by an open parentheses will get you there.

I know. I'm old skool.