Is this one of those threads that appears to be discussing the actual legal effect of actual legislation, but if I discuss the actual legal effect of this actual legislation, I’ll be derailing the thread?
I guess that’s the point I am trying to make. It is already illegal to beat the shit out of someone for ANY reason (save self-defense, etc.). This law doesn’t change that. If the whole bill disappears, this is still illegal.
That leads me to wonder the point of the legislation. Since physical battery is illegal and verbal assault that puts a victim in reasonable fear of bodily injury is illegal, then what are we trying to do here?
If a kid says to a fellow classmate who is gay, “Get away from me you fag!,” are we seriously trying to make this a crime instead of a school matter? I mean, don’t get me wrong, that kind of stuff needs to be dealt with in a school disciplinary fashion, but how can the government ban insults, bigoted or not?
Only if anyone pays any attention.
No, it doesn’t. The U.S. Constitution trumps any legislation that Michigan–or any other state full of retarded Christians–passes. The Establishment Clause still holds the same force it previously did.
Blasphemy then? I don’t know. Islam is not keen on Jesus being bigger than Mohammad. I know from personal experience they Muslims don’t regard Jesus as the Son of God, and got rather upset about it. So fight my ignorance here, Kobal2.
Per the rest of my whoosh: I should have said “bill” not “law”. The bill does deal with bullying issues, BTW, but it doesn’t seem very well thought out (re: this link). And I can see why Michigan Republicans would be hesitant from an ideological point of view of intervening at a local level.
But Paragraph[?] (8) which is part of the amendment (Sec. 1310b) is the passage that is so full of ambiguity that it would be a legal mess from day one if it became law.
My argument still stands (sans the violence whoosh) that this section would back-fire against the very people they’re trying to “protect”.
The Democrats win the “Good Guys” here by default as the the Republican members are too nebbish to come up with something more nuanced and politically tenable. They look like a bunch of Elmer J. Fudds looking down the barrel of a gun before pulling the trigger (Oooo, those wascally wibewals! We’ll show them! BAM!).
Which is weird, because usually they only shoot old Texas lawyers in the face. Unless its rabbit season, of course.
Yeah…
“But it wasn’t against the law” is not a defense when faced with termination.
Well, that (the first part) is exactly what the bill does. It doesn’t make bullying illegal. It requires school systems to have an anti-bullying policy that meets certain guidelines described in the bill.
I see. So bullying wouldn’t be a crime, just that a school district needs a policy. And this policy must protect the right of a student to say, “I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin” or “There is no God but Allah” without a gay student or a Christian student respectively urging these statement to be classified as “bullying.”
What’s the problem with that?
As I now understand the law, it does not do that. It merely means that if a teacher were to do such a thing, it would not be called “bullying.” It would still violate the 7 or 8 other regulations currently applied that would get said teacher disciplined almost immediately.
<nitpick> wabbit </nitpick>
So, what I think I see here is a dance of folly. The first set of people wanted to put a specific law in place against “bullying”. Not sure that’s even really possible, but I understand the motive. But then someone says "Well, wait a minute, what if someone is honestly witnessing in a reasonable and friendly fashion, surely that cannot be counted as ‘bullying’ "
So they tacked on a proviso, that erased the crime so long as the motivation was sincere. Nope. Nope. Not gonna work.
Why the need for bullying laws? If I went around stalking, harassing, fighting, and stealing from people I’d be thrown in jail.
This is another folly by the “movie of week issue” or “there oughta be a law” folks. “Bullying” is the latest cause célèbre, around which we are supposed to rally and ignore common sense and constitutional protections. Sorry, but I don’t want to legislatures telling us what kids can and cannot say under certain circumstances. Let the parents and schools set their own policies, which is what they do with or without this law.
Give it a shot, I’ll read it. On it’s face, it does sound like a group of students could go around chanting God Hates Fags without running afoul of any hate crime or bullying laws. What say you?
So is the issue here that schools with anti-bullying rules without exceptions for religious/free speech issues will be forced to change them?
Ain’t that simple. Got some really icky implications, don’t it? Suppose some religious kid starts in telling the gay kid that he’s going to Hell. He’s sincere. Means it, maybe means no actual malice at all. Point of fact, his religious convictions demand it of him. Now, so long as no violence or no threat of violence is present, is that bullying? I’m inclined to think so.
But the devil is in the details, and his lawyer is right there with him.
But the main problem I see (or perhaps only think) is that the law hinges and pivots on the sincerity of religious belief, and I cannot imagine how that determination can be made.
I can’t see how a law that says somebody can’t nonviolently tell another person he thinks that person is going to hell could possibly pass Constitutional muster, though.
OK, how about this: There’s A. A is a capital-C Phelps Phelcher who believes all gays are going to Hell. A meets B, who is not quite as queer as a purple three-dollar bill. (Does anyone say that anymore?) Anyway, A gets on B’s case, up in B’s face, and makes sure B knows everything that Hell entails. Every. Single. Thing. A threatens and intimates that B will taste of that fruit before B tastes death. Possibly immediately before, if you know what I mean. B is pretty much compelled to be with A for a certain amount of time every weekday, and, frankly, nobody else B is with really cares what the little freak thinks.
Is that assault? Could B get a restraining order against A?
I think the traditional way involves stadiums and lions.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Why the need for bullying laws? If I went around stalking, harassing, fighting, and stealing from people I’d be thrown in jail.
[/QUOTE]
In my personal experience (and, I suspect, that of many more on the board), not if you do it in a schoolyard, you wouldn’t.