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

[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.