Flaw in Anti-Bullying Law

[Kiju]

I never had problems with bullies...so I guess the gravity of this situation is somewhat lost on me.

Did I ever get bullied? Sure, who didn't? But by the end of the day, they were the one with the bloody mouth and not me.

Did I get in trouble for it? Fuck yes I did, but it only usually happened twice per school I went to, and only once in Highschool. The ends justified the means by fighting back, since I never got bulled from then on, and my parents were behind me 100% on the matter when they learned as to why I smashed in the face of a kid a full foot taller than me. (I was a small kid)

P.S. I'd like to thank my schools for using that rough, bumpy painting method for their school buildings. It works really good for smashing someone's face into after they've decided to pick on me. Perfect for ripping their lip open on so they leave me the hell alone.

 

[Arrogancy]

I question the need for any anti-bullying laws. Yes, bullying is terrible, and in extremist situations it can lead to the death of the one being bullied. However, this is not something that can be dealt with on a governmental level. It's up to the schools and the parents of the children to intervene to stop the problem before it gets to this point. I was terribly bullied growing up, not as extreme as some of those who have posted here, to be sure, but still. Really, though worded in a rather stupid way, the clause providing immunity to those who can supply "moral and/or religious" reason for bullying is just in there to protect religious interests. As many churches believe homosexuality to be some sort of disease or sin, under the anti-bullying law stating these churches' religious beliefs would be punishable by law. While I personally don't believe this, I do support freedom of speech. To get back to the initial point I raised, I don't see the need for this law. If you are threatened by speech directed against your person you have the right to sue for libel or slander. Really, as far as I'm concerned this law does little more than reiterate that.

 

[Belaam]

So, if a Republican bully says, "Hey, the Bible says we should kill homosexuals, so I had a moral and religious reason for bullying the crap out of that kid I called gay." they are good to go?

Really don't have words.

Though it sounds like I might have a moral obligation to bully anyone who supports this crap.

edit:

If you are threatened by speech directed against your person you have the right to sue for libel or slander. Really, as far as I'm concerned this law does little more than reiterate that.

Libel and slander only apply to false statements. That might help a straight kid who is bullied and called homophobic slurs, but neither libel nor slander would apply to a kid who is actually gay.

 

[hotsauceman]

I question the need for any anti-bullying laws. Yes, bullying is terrible, and in extremist situations it can lead to the death of the one being bullied. However, this is not something that can be dealt with on a governmental level. It's up to the schools and the parents of the children to intervene to stop the problem before it gets to this point. I was terribly bullied growing up, not as extreme as some of those who have posted here, to be sure, but still. Really, though worded in a rather stupid way, the clause providing immunity to those who can supply "moral and/or religious" reason for bullying is just in there to protect religious interests. As many churches believe homosexuality to be some sort of disease or sin, under the anti-bullying law stating these churches' religious beliefs would be punishable by law. While I personally don't believe this, I do support freedom of speech. To get back to the initial point I raised, I don't see the need for this law. If you are threatened by speech directed against your person you have the right to sue for libel or slander. Really, as far as I'm concerned this law does little more than reiterate that.

That is the problem, Schools and parents. Schools are to afraid of parents of the bullies who will have a hissy fit about their child that they thing is a perfect angel is in trouble.
Or the parents of the bullies dont care.
So the government needs to intervene.

 

[Substitute Troll]

This is why I'm a socialist.

Also, if I hear one more stupid fucking thing happen because of religion today, I swear, I'll snap. Just give me 24 fricking hours without some religious nuthead doing stupid shit.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Maybe its a trick so they know what was going through the bully's mind and they can correct it?

Then again, slap religious (specifically Christian) onto anything and a republican will back it.

I know I had (what I thought was) a good reason to basically assault someone once, an Im kinda surprised the law turned a blind eye to it.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Well looks like gov't is herp-a-derp-a-derp-a-derping again. Bullies who know about this law are probably in the minority though.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

pretty sure that federal law calls attacking someone for religious reasons a hate crime...

 

[xDarc]

I think the stipulation in this bill that has made you all livid is hollow. Anyone trying to circumvent the new guidelines this bill sets down, by claiming moral reasons, will likely make a case that goes pretty far in the courts; likely sending this law back to the drawing board.

So while I wouldn't worry about it, it does go to show the lack of principle and conviction on the part of our legislators.

Michigan is a strange place. Oakland county is/was the 3rd wealthiest county in the USA. While most people have never heard of it, they have all heard of the place next door with the worst rep in the nation- Detroit.

The widespread income inequality around here breeds a lot of bitterness. Probably doesn't help the bullying situation either.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

The law can be taken either way I guess. Homosexual kid kills another kid in a fight because his "straightness" is morally wrong in his eyes?

See how that can be twisted? This idea is bonkers.

Ehm...no, I don't really see that. I can plainly see that this is a loophole to allow harassment of homosexual students. It can't be 'twisted' in another way, especially not the utterly insane situation you concocted. This is just a law in the same direction of the old "literacy tests" they had at voting booths. The ulterior motive is set up so that it's irrelevant whether or not you try to beat the system: it's obvious where you stand, and the person overseeing things will simply side against you.

 

[000Ronald]

I question the need for any anti-bullying laws. Yes, bullying is terrible, and in extremist situations it can lead to the death of the one being bullied. However, this is not something that can be dealt with on a governmental level. It's up to the schools and the parents of the children to intervene to stop the problem before it gets to this point. I was terribly bullied growing up, not as extreme as some of those who have posted here, to be sure, but still. Really, though worded in a rather stupid way, the clause providing immunity to those who can supply "moral and/or religious" reason for bullying is just in there to protect religious interests. As many churches believe homosexuality to be some sort of disease or sin, under the anti-bullying law stating these churches' religious beliefs would be punishable by law. While I personally don't believe this, I do support freedom of speech. To get back to the initial point I raised, I don't see the need for this law. If you are threatened by speech directed against your person you have the right to sue for libel or slander. Really, as far as I'm concerned this law does little more than reiterate that.

I might be able to answer this, actually. Schools and parents can only do so much, and it's been realized that bullying is a very serious problem, much more than initially thought. Sure, you can throw someone out of school for a couple of days, or even expel them. The problem is that expelling someone with no goals in life is a piss poor punishment when they've personally driven someone to suicide.

That's what the law would be for, ideally. Setting up a precedent where, if that happens, that person goes to prison. For years.

The problem is that they purposely left out the two biggest causes of bullying, gutting the bill. In trying to set a precedent, they didn't set enough of a precedent, and failed in what they were trying to do.

That's the cause. And the problem.

 

[chadachada123]

I think the stipulation in this bill that has made you all livid is hollow. Anyone trying to circumvent the new guidelines this bill sets down, by claiming moral reasons, will likely make a case that goes pretty far in the courts; likely sending this law back to the drawing board.

So while I wouldn't worry about it, it does go to show the lack of principle and conviction on the part of our legislators.

Michigan is a strange place. Oakland county is/was the 3rd wealthiest county in the USA. While most people have never heard of it, they have all heard of the place next door with the worst rep in the nation- Detroit.

The widespread income inequality around here breeds a lot of bitterness. Probably doesn't help the bullying situation either.

Oakland County is sweet. I live here, and for the most part, it's pretty damn reasonable.

Religiosity is so incredibly low in this county, despite being the richest in the state, that I have almost nothing to fear when admitting to someone that I'm atheistic.

This county may be conservative, but it's also very educated, which, compared with the rest of the US and Michigan, is quite the godsend. Especially compared to the hicks in Livingston county and the thugs in Wayne.

Funnily-enough, my township is not very wealthy at all compared to the rest of Oakland. Mine is mostly farm land and suburban neighborhoods, with a trailer park or two also. There are some interesting qualities shared by my neighbors, but few of them are extremely religious.

A final word is that, after actually reading the part of the law, it's very clear that the law is not meant to be religious and does not allow bullying merely because a person is religious, nor is that the intention of the authors. Religiosity is not a problem in Michigan, but the authors knew that, without this exemption, the law could be thrown out for "violating free speech" if a kid is suspended for saying what he believes, even if his beliefs are by nature offensive.

 

[TheDooD]

I'll Comeback to this, this is the first time I need to sleep on a forum post... I'm that mad and confused at the moment.

 

[Vykrel]

...This confuses me on many levels. What exactly IS a "religious or moral" reason? I would have thought the only thing that constitutes was self-defense.

Actually, now I think about it, that could be a good thing. Morally, you can now step in and punch a guy in the face if he's picking on someone else.

Hey, that's great!

i assume religious reasons would be bullying someone because they are gay or something.

also, stepping in and taking out a bully isnt really bullying. its more like... sweet justice

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

...This confuses me on many levels. What exactly IS a "religious or moral" reason?

To put it bluntly, I suppose it's something like this:

UR A FAGOT AND I HATE FAGOTS = bullying
UR A FAGOT AND GOD HATES FAGOTS = not bullying

 

[BarbaricGoose]

"Look, I HAD to beat this kid up and take his money because I need the money to give to my church. And god hates gays."

Edit:

...This confuses me on many levels. What exactly IS a "religious or moral" reason?

To put it bluntly, I suppose it's something like this:

UR A FAGOT AND I HATE FAGOTS = bullying
UR A FAGOT AND GOD HATES FAGOTS = not bullying

Ninja'd.