That's All I Came Here For -- I've Already Got The Pajamas

[filkertom]

I love my home state of Michigan. By and large, it's a lovely place. But our political system -- city, county, and state -- has gone down the effing tubes.

Brand-spankin'-new law. Hmmm. Maybe I shouldn't word it that way. Basically, it's a law with the ostensible purpose of providing more tangible protections against bullies and bullying. Y'know, like kids being beaten up by other kids.

Thing is, it's got loopholes.

The law includes a section noting it doesn't abridge First Amendment free speech rights or prohibit expression of religious or moral viewpoints — a provision Democrats fear could be used to justify harassment of gay, lesbian or transgender students.

It's worth it to follow some of the other links, including Joe My God and the straightforward Detroit News story.

Here's the thing: THERE ARE NO EXCUSES, EVER, FOR BULLYING.

You're worried about infringing on the rights of someone who is trying to harass, intimidate, threaten, and possibly physically harm someone? Fuck you. The old "your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose" bit.

You say that there should be an exemption for those expressing their religious beliefs? Fuck you. We can play that game. Someone's First Amendment right to bully Someone Else because their faith "demands" it is cancelled out by Someone Else's First Amendment right protecting them from the government supporting any specific religion. Not to mention, y'know, the laws against assault. Oh, and, let's look at the tax status of any religion that says Thou Shalt Beat People Up Because They Make Us Feel All Squicky.

This is not merely a bad law, it's an asinine law. It literally provides a blueprint for how to get out of an accusation of bullying -- I Was Expressing My First Amendment Rights.

It's yet another of many, many examples of just how screwed up the people in charge really are.

I'm nowhere near ready to leave Michigan yet. But this pushes me one step closer.

Fuckers.

Comments

As far as the Republicans there are concerned,

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

there is no reason to forbid gay-bashing in schools. Their "god" is the irreligious wrong, who want to turn this country into their version of a "christian theocracy" - no gays, Hindi, Buddhists, Jews, etc., allowed.

Re: As far as the Republicans there are concerned,

[droewyn.livejournal.com]

Except it also means that picking on a Christian kid for being a superstitious nutjob is now also allowed.

So they've shot themselves in the foot.

Also, Senator Whitmer's rebuttal statement is amazing.

Re: As far as the Republicans there are concerned,

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Do you think they're going to allow that to happen? If a christian kid get's harassed, then they're going to call it something else so their exemption won't apply. Mark my words, the second a christian is attacked and the bully says, "I have a strong moral conviction that makes this OK." there's going to be cries of christian oppression.

Re: As far as the Republicans there are concerned,

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Except it also means that picking on a Christian kid for being a superstitious nutjob is now also allowed.

No, that'll be a hate crime for which the other kid will be pilloried.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

It still has to make it through the rest of the law making process then stand up to the courts.

Still, the symbolism that repubs think religion justifies bullying a student is disgusting.

[batyatoon]

I can see being worried about a fine line between prohibiting verbal harassment of a gay kid and prohibiting talking about one's own religious beliefs.

However: I don't see any way that a law prohibiting violence against another person's body or possessions should require any disclaimer about First Amendment rights. DO NOT HIT. How hard is that?

Maybe the law should distinguish between verbal and physical bullying. Getting a clear, non-ambiguous, unwatered law prohibiting the latter might be a lot easier to manage.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Then take a closer look. That exemption allows harassment if they can use religion to justify it. Harassment isn't just name calling or obscene phone calls. It can include physical attacks and intimidation. Things that would be called assault and battery if they were adults but ignored as "mere bullying" since it happens in a school.

[batyatoon]

No, that's exactly what I mean. "Harassment" is far too broad a category of things to prohibit, since it includes both physical attacks -- which it cannot be argued should be allowed by the First Amendment -- and verbal attacks, for which such an argument could be made.

I am suggesting passing a law prohibiting physical violence alone, and only then attempting to pass a law limiting what people are allowed to say.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Maybe the law should distinguish between verbal and physical bullying.

Why? Non-physical bullying's encouraged enough as is without legal language imlpicitly giving it even more of a pass.

[per_solo]

Yeah, if we took away Non-physical bullying, how would our government operate? ;-)

Seriously, this is so not good I have no comprehension how it could even have been proposed...

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

It's simple - the legislation was proposed by people who want to encourage the behaviour the loophole will allow for.

[per_solo]

True, that is simple. *sigh* So much for my hope for humanity in any shade.

[batyatoon]

Non-physical bullying (in general, regardless of motivation) is a lot harder to prohibit without unacceptable infringement on free speech. Not, and I want to emphasize this, not impossible. Just a lot harder.

And so long as physical and verbal attacks are considered the same thing under this general term of "harassment" -- which, whose bright idea was that? -- the inherent difficulty in prohibiting verbal attacks is being extended to cover physical attacks as well. Which is frakking ridiculous, and which (it seems to me) should be much easier to stop than the larger issue.

I would love to prevent kids from making other kids miserable, period. I would settle for preventing kids from putting other kids in the hospital.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

I have to take a deep breath and a step back over this one. I was a victim of bullying when I was growing up. It happened in every school I attended, even the Christian school I went to.

Providing any loophole for this behaviour is asenine and dangerous. We already turn a blind eye to bullying as just "kids being kids" and it has done nothing but create more problems that carry over into adulthood.

It has created more potentially deadly problems. Teen suicide, more situations like Columbine and psychological scarring are the results of bullying and it is only going to stop when we stand together and demand that schools actually get involved in finding solutions.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I would conjecture that a goodly percentage of the people reading this LJ were subjected to at least verbal harassment over a period of years, likely extending at least into their late teens if not early twenties, for such "offenses" as less-than-cool clothing or haircut, glasses or braces, liking to read, getting better-than-average grades, not being a fan of sports... or daring to complain about being bullied.

Or not joining in with bullying someone else.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

From my reading of the bill, the exemption wouldn't protect physical harassment or bullying, only "statements" (verbal) that originated from a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."

Not that this makes it okay in any way, and I'm very much with you in the WTF. Just posted my own rant about this same thing, in fact.

When the father of the kid this bill is named after, not to mention the Michigan State Superintendent, both describe this bill as an insult and a disgrace, I think it's safe to say there's a problem.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Agreed with all points. Although I think we all know how damaging even standard schoolyard speech can be, certainly for those at an age to not really have any defenses against it. Heck, I can tell you most of the names I was called from 3rd grade on, including "Big Ears", "Goofy", and "Shitty Smitty" (one of the school bus drivers! He said it as a term of endearment, I guess, because he was always great to me otherwise, but naturally it caught on with the kids).

One girl, a very tall and pretty one in my seventh grade Spanish class, told me she loved me one day. Thing is, she was very popular, and I wasn't, and the way she did it was calculated to humiliate me for days.

The phrase "kill with a word" is not inaccurate, at the right age.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

Yep. Probably 95% of the crap I took from other kids was verbal, but it was more than enough to make me wonder if death would be better than continuing to endure that every day...

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

And of course, another section of the bill would have shielded the bus driver, because adults and faculty are excluded to. ("Endearment" or not, how the hell is that an okay thing to call a kid???)

I HATE bullies.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

The phrase "kill with a word" is not inaccurate, at the right age.

Mine had a betting pool as to how/when I'd off myself... and they only thought I was a lesbian.

I'm not, but I guess that's what happens when you're 16 and not a raging slut and you hang out mainly with the handful of "out" gay kids - which I did because they needed someone on their side, and dammit they had the same taste in music as me!! (and nobody else liked broke-ass "weirdo" me anyway)

For the record, nobody bet on "never" in that pool. So I did, once I found out about it. (and I'm still winning!)

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I'm reading Terry Pratchett's book "Snuff" right now. In it we hear Vimes and Vetinari state the idea that "small crimes lead to big crimes". Even if this exemption doesn't protect those who physically attack others, it can very easily lead to it. Once you make it acceptable to verbally harass someone on a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" it's easy to look the other way when it comes to book dumping, wedgies, an accidental shove, etc.

Hm.

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

I have strong inclinations toward both protecting kids from bullying and protecting kids from others abusing the system to their advantage by invoking laws like this. Thus, I tend to sit on the fence when it comes to laws such as this being passed at all, as I always fear they will be abused by someone due to things like difficulty defining "bullying", etc. I have an innate fear of compromising rights of free speech, even for a good cause, because doing so can and does bite us in the ass in ways we don't always think about when we're feeling understandably passionate about things like this.

However, from what I've been able to find and read on the actual law itself... I think I have to call bullshit right along with you, Tom. There's no good reason for this provision. All it does is give bullies an out. Religious bullies, no less, which are some of the worst kinds. *grumble*

[roman-mclaze.livejournal.com]

I have a profound dislike for religious speech exceptions of all kinds.

Partially because it encourages the use of "God said it, not me!" as a get-out-of-jail-free card for all kinds of unpleasantness, but also because it puts the government in the business of deciding what is and is not a religion and I'm really not okay with that.

I'm not implying a slippery-slope here, I'm more bothered by a lack of one.

"Well, the Church of Pelor gets a pass on the orc-bashing cuz their holy book says they should do it, and I guess the Vecna guys are allowed to deny the Cataclysm happened cuz they've been doing it for generations and it's part of their culture, but the Raven Queen clergy aren't allowed to preach that the Vecna guys are dummyheads, cuz they've only been around for like, five years, and I think Susan made it up anyway so she could take that feat she wanted."

(See how I'm using fictional religions instead of real ones? It's cuz I'm being diplomatic and stuff!)

[roman-mclaze.livejournal.com]

...it occurs to me that I left open an obvious joke about how all religions are fictional. Dammit, I'm losing my touch.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

To this day (30+ years since high school) I don't dare go to a reunion. I couldn't be civil with most of those people. "Oh, hi! How are you doing? Bet you have no idea how often I fantasized about riding my bike over your faces because of the shit you put me through. And largely because of you and all your super-special bestest friends, I cheer every time I watch the prom scene in Carrie."

Also to this day? When I hear about a school shooting, my very very first thought is never "Oh how horrible, what a tragedy," but "How long did the other kids bully and abuse that kid while the adults looked the other way?"

[realinterrobang.livejournal.com]

Oh hell yes. This. 1000x this. To this day (and I'm nearer 40 than 30 these days), I still think of Carrie as a "feel-good" book. :)

[ladysoapmaker.livejournal.com]

As one of my friends put it, It's the Pro-Bullying Law.

I hope either they listen to the parent of the child for whom it's named and scrap it or the governor actually vetoes it.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Our governor? He'll sign it with a brass band playing.

[ladysoapmaker.livejournal.com]

Can't a person hope....

[mythdude.livejournal.com]

I worry about the state of our country. :(

[capt-video.livejournal.com]

I keep seeing posts about this on other sites with loads of comments about how "we don't need laws, parents should teach their kids not to be assholes" and I am here to point out that the bullies of my school days were *encouraged* by their parents! And sometimes by teachers!

This law is literally not worth the paper it's printed on.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. You reminded me of an episode of The Brady Bunch, of all things, where some bully was harassing one of the kids, and Dad Brady went to talk to him, and the bully's dad was a bully as well. On an early-70s comedy. This is an old, old, old problem.

[jenrose]

K's grade school did not have a "no sexual harassment" policy.

They did not have a "No gender or sexual orientation harassment policy."

They did not have a "No racial harassment policy."

They had a "No harassment" policy.

It's just that simple.

Best summed up by Wil Wheaton. "Don't be a dick."

There is no excuse for harassment. Period. Ever. Not because you believe something you feel morally bound to persuade someone. Not because you think you know better than them. Not because you're trying to correct their ways, or make you sleep with them, or make sure they know their place. There. Is. No. Excuse.

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

Bullying is out and out nasty.
ANY physical bullying is assault
Assault is illegal.

Verbal bullying is harassment.
Harassment is illegal.

Period.

There is no excuse, not ever.