When Bullying is Bull
When I first posed the question of how one defines "cyberbullying," I received no good answers. That's because there are none, the proponents of laws against bullying preferring to ignore problems like definitions in favor of outcomes, like any conduct that makes someone feel badly. This, of course, fails any test of providing notice of prohibited conduct, and empowers teacups everywhere to lash out at their nemeses.
Of course, when anything can fall within a definition, it's easy to make claims that the problem is pervasive, and hence demanding of extreme and immediate action. Proponents of anti-bullying laws have bootstrapped a handful of high profile instances into the suggestion that this is a "pandemic." Hans Bader at the Examiner isn't buying.
Of course, when anything can fall within a definition, it's easy to make claims that the problem is pervasive, and hence demanding of extreme and immediate action. Proponents of anti-bullying laws have bootstrapped a handful of high profile instances into the suggestion that this is a "pandemic." Hans Bader at the Examiner isn't buying.
I wish I could say your post is hyperbolic. It is not. Nor is it restricted to domestic issues.
International organizations such as the UN and religious groups like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation -- among others -- seek to protect feelings that are undefinable by any objective standard. They depend solely on the perception of the person whose feelings are hurt.
'Hate crime' legislation falls in the same, inchoate bucket.
If we have crimes that depend on some other person 'knowing it when he sees it', we're in a mess. All three branches of the US government have tended down a path that leads to nothing good, even for those they think they are supporting.
Reply to this
The irony (and unintended consequence) is that both the bully and bullied will be caught in the same net. None of us makes it through life (or even childhood) without hurting someone's feelings, or having our feelings hurt. None of us.
Reply to this
That hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from trying to federalize anti-bullying policy.
Interesting use of the bully pulpit.
Reply to this
Notice how I studiously avoided using that phrase, despite the easy pun?
Reply to this
The problem with cyber bullying is that the victim has to consent to being bullied.
You are not required to read a text message from a number you don't recognize, or do recognize but know it's from a bully. You don't have to read an instant message, or someone's Facebook wall. And, in many cases you have a simply 1-3 click procedure for completely blocking that person's current and future attempts to bully you.
What makes actual bullying bad is that you can't easily avoid it, and you're even required by law to keep going to the place where the bullies bully you. Even in person though, you can choose not to talk to a bully, and while you can't choose not to hear them, you can choose not to pay attention to them or choose to not dwell on it. What you can't do is choose not to get punched or not to feel yourself getting punched.
But, this is our culture now, where we're all too eager to trade liberty for safety.
Reply to this
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you were beaten daily in school for your lunch money, and the bullies were very hostile because they had to wait in line to pants you or give you a swirly.
Reply to this
There it is- cyberbullying!
Reply to this
That's amazing! How did you know I rolled my eyes as I read his comment?
Reply to this
School was fine. My parents were bullies though.
Reply to this
Most parents are, at least in the eyes of children.
Your parents didn't give you swirlies, right?
Reply to this
One of the hats I wear is as general counsel for school districts in New Jersey. NJ just passed a broad anti-bullying law (affectionately referred to as the Anti-HIB law. HIB = Harassment, Intimidation Bullying).
The law is so ridiculously overreaching and over-broad that it's sent educators into a tizzy during my trainings. One of my favorite (read: not favorite, but annoying and stupid) provisions says that the protected categories include, among the usual suspects, "any other distinguishing characteristic". You can imagine the questions these poor teachers began to ask: "Does it mean people with red hair? Lazy eye? Droopy ears?" And, of course, my response, "Yes. Yes. Yes."
Yes, that's what the law means.
It also includes behavior that "a reasonable person should know…will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student…or placing a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to his person or damage to his property." Put aside the ironically-amusing male-centric drafting of an anti-discrimination law, I can't wait for the first claim to come that certain behavior put a student in reasonable fear of emotional harm to his property. Legislators (in particular, their interns) suck profusely at writing laws.
Anyways, this legislation was drafted in response to the tragedy at Rutgers. Just now, the legislature passed Anti-Casey Anthony laws.
Thankfully, I don't have to train school districts on that one.
Victor
Reply to this
I'm familiar with New Jersey's knee-jerk effort at saving the children. It sad, but understandable, since it's not like Jersey has a governor who is a lawyer and was once the United States Attorney and therefore fully cognizant of what's required for a law to pass constitutional muster.
Reply to this
What's the point of the anti-bullying laws? To teach children that they don't need to stand up for themselves; just tell the grown-ups and have them deal with it.
Here's a hint: this sort of behavior goes on in the real world, not just in grade school. Except in the real world, you can't just go tell the teacher. Or your boss, since your boss may in fact be the one doing it.
We're raising a generation of children who will be utterly unprepared for the real world, still dependent on others to fight their battles for them when they reach 30. Existing laws should be enough to deal with the serious bullying (assault, etc.)
Reply to this
There's much to be said for the days when "sticks and stones" ruled. We got angry, perhaps, but it didn't ruin our life. Instead, it taught us how the beat the crap out of the other kid and make sure it never happened again.
Reply to this
Of course, now schools have inane policies like suspending a student for 180 days for assault while suspending both students 10 days each for fighting. (This was my school's actual policy.)
Lesson taught? When another kid punches you, the proper thing to do is to let him hit you. Punch him back, and you're now fighting and you will be suspended.
Reply to this
The religious and gender-based overtones are difficult to ignore. Turn the other cheek. Violence is bad, even if it's in self defense. Great lessons for the nunnery.
Reply to this
The logical following is that if somebody is going to kill you, you should just let him kill you instead of killing him first.
If these really are the lessons schools are teaching, jury pools will become very interesting in a few years.
Reply to this
I remember reading The Great Brain series when I was younger. In it, the narrator describes mostly-Mormon Adenville, UT, a town in which the residents had learned to live together in tolerance and understanding. For he and his brothers, that happened when they each learned to whip every Mormon kid their age in town, because "there is nothing as tolerant and understanding as a kid you can whip."
Reply to this
The biggest bullies of all receive government payroll checks.
Or so it seems to me.
Reply to this
That same note is getting tiresome. Try expanding your repertoire
Reply to this
Merely noting the irony.
Reply to this
The First Amendment empowers bullies, ipso facto the First Amendment is a bully. Therefore, we should repeal the First Amendment, but not before I can not invite Scott Greenfield to my birthday party.
Reply to this
Well done. By the way, 2 possible anti-bullying sanctuaries might be San Diego and Seattle--if anyone actually wants to move to either. And both I've nicknamed "Death with a View". Swearing or raising your voice is apparently not tolerated in either city, either. (Dwarf-tossing of course is really and completely out the question in both towns--and especially hurling pre-teen dwarfs.) Finally, I'm advised that the word "teacups" comes from experiences had by college admissions officers with parents and their children in SD, Orange and LA counties. All of these are very oppressive areas. So I'm house-hunting again in south Boston, DC, Parma, Ohio and Watts.
Reply to this
There's nothing inherently wrong with bullying. In every relationship or group, there will be the popular, strong, and well-liked, and then also the despised, ugly, and scapegoats.
The problem isn't insufficient laws, but rather insufficient parents. We don't have to legislate meanness. Because being mean not only ought not be a crime, but it isn't necessarily bad.
Also, the parents of the bullied need to be more in tune with their children. If you don't know your kid is getting his ass beat at school, then you aren't paying enough (I hate hovering parents, so maybe "proper" is a better adjective) attention to your kid.
Are laws are reactionary, but fail to look at the causes. Kids aren't killing themselves because they're being bullied. They're killing themselves because they see, with the internet, the whole world's pain at once. When you know the grass isn't greener elsewhere, and when you think you have characteristics that will always have you being out down by others, and your parents aren't helping...the options run out.
But new law isn't the way fix this. And I've dealt with this issue prosecuting juvenile cases and defending juveniles.
P.S. I was bullied growing up, which lead me to lift weights in high school. Tables turn in life, you can always sit somewhere else.
Reply to this
Our future generation...
"Please allow my email to advise you that your performance is just not to speed. You have to start doing a better job or we'll have to choice but to terminate you. Also, we've received a few complaints about some things you said to some of the women in the office. That needs to stop."
"YOU'RE A CYBER BULLY!!!! THAT HURT MY FEELINGS!!! I'M GOING TO SUE YOU! YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID IT NICER TO ME!!! HURT FEELINGS!"
Also, I just used all caps on Scott's blog, oh yes I did...
Kidding aside, is this kind of crap going to get expanded into the workforce? How is our next generation going to handle constructive and candid criticism? Even worse, what about in the law? "I was going to move for counsel fees, but I didn't want to hurt opposing counsel's feelings."
Reply to this