Michigan Republics approve bill that advocates bullying gays.

[DaveSW]

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/michigan-gop-pass-bullying-bill-giving-license-to-bully/politics/2011/11/03/29580

Yup.  A bill that says that bullying is allowed as long as it is for 'moral or religious' reasons.  Not only students are allowed to bully others, but the fucking teachers are allowed to bully students.

At the very least, the Republicans that voted for this should have the shit beat of them, but honestly, I'd rather they just fucking die.  Monsters.

Basically, any non xian can be bullied to the extreme, and it is completely legal now. 

What the fuck is wrong in the US?   This is just more fuel for the fire.  If shit like this keeps up, it will lead to another civil war.
At this point, I wouldn't mind that.

[Kaijyuu]

At the very least, the Republicans that voted for this should have the shit beat of them, but honestly, I'd rather they just fucking die.  Monsters.

I often wonder why people have a habit of demonizing people and then threaten the exact same behavior back at them. It doesn't undermine the argument (tu quoque and all that), but certainly doesn't help it either.


Anyway, bill is obviously incredibly stupid.

[RedWorld]

This is horrible! In MY state!? Oh hell no!

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

Here is a link to the bill in its entirety: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0137.pdf

The only section I can find the would even remotely (very remotely) address this issue would be this section:

(8) THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.

Which clearly promotes the bullying of gays.  It also clearly states that Xian's can bully whomever they would like.  /sarcasm

Actually, what that section says is that a school's anti-bullying/anti-false accusation policy cannot violate the first amendment rights of any of the involved parties. You could argue that second sentence allows (not advocates) someone stating it is their religious right to bully someone. If it stopped there I would give you at least some credence anti-Xian rage (or any anti-religion rage), but it is followed up by the 'moral conviction' bit which opens it up to anyone, religious and non-religious alike.  So anyone who has a sincerely held moral obligation to bully a homosexual can do so.  Likewise, anyone who has a sincerely held moral obligation to bully a heterosexual can do so.

Really, I don't see this as "advocating" any bullying.  Moreover, I see this as an anti-bullying bill that is trying to cover its ass, by blatantly saying "This bill is not un-constitutional."

[GeneralStrife]

Thanks for the link, after reading it I don't really see the bill stating what the OP said anywhere.

I see anti bullying clauses in this bill.

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

New thread name: Michigan Democrats vote against bill that outlaws bullying gays.

[Durbs]

New thread name: Michigan Democrats vote against bill that outlaws bullying gays.

Better.

[GeneralStrife]

New thread name: Michigan Democrats vote against bill that outlaws bullying gays.

[dinosaur]

Annoying. More bureaucratic work. Paper pushing. Help solve the problem or not, it is a very inefficient method. And inefficient methods slows down the solution/ process.... Very dumb bill.

[DaveSW]

Wow, just wow. 
Do you understand what that section allows?  The bill specifically states that everything is peachy keen as long as it is a religious or moral conviction. 

Throwing around the first amendment like that is bullshit.  Freedom of speech applies to a lot more than just morals and religion.  So why single those out as being ok?  How is telling someone else that their existence is a 'sin' ever ok?  The Government may allow people to be racist, but it does not ever suggest that racism is somehow ok.  No one that wants to make the government racist is allowed to have a voice in politics.  Why is the same thing not being done for gays?  Why can't the government take the stance that homophobia is not ok, but individuals can be homophobic on their own time?

Instead we get bills like this.  You can't bully others, but constantly telling someone they are going to hell and that they need to repent because god hates them is ok, because somehow that isn't bullying.  How does that make sense?  That clause makes any homophobic moron able to get away with just about anything, because they can just argue that it is protected speech.

This bill is seriously fucked up, but leave it to conservatives to think that it is somehow a step forward.

[GeneralStrife]

It does not say a specific person can be targeted for bullying based on belief/sexuality or any of that. It simply says this bill does not encroach on the first amendment rights. It's no different than a man of muslim faith in america beating a woman for not being fully covered if she doesn't want to. That women as a citizen of the united states does not have have to abide by him if she doesn't want to, this is the land of the free, and whether you like it or not that includes free speech. If you don't like it, there's the door -> |.|

This bill helps people who are bullied, no matter who they are. If I were to walk up to someone and bully them and punch them for 'being gay' I could still have charges pressed on me. It's no different. First. Amendment. 'Speech' 'Freedom'

Basically your democrats voted against a bill that would help students being bullied, and you are mad that the republicans want to protect free speech



da bill of rights
It's why you can 'occupy wall street' or a dumbass can claim 'the world is coming to an end'

[Kaijyuu]

Hrm, I stand corrected.


I would like an actual lawyer to give an opinion on it rather than a distilled, biased interpretation. I'm one of the most anti-censorship people you'll ever meet, so infringing free speech is not something I'd be in favor of. My stance is people should not be inhibited from throwing insults... provided it does not result in harassment. Harassment requires more than a single condescending quip thrown in the hallway. When it becomes unrelenting or physical, that's when you can kiss your freedom of speech rights goodbye, because their right to be in school or whatever uninhibited overrides free speech any day.

[GeneralStrife]

Hrm, I stand corrected.


I would like an actual lawyer to give an opinion on it rather than a distilled, biased interpretation. I'm one of the most anti-censorship people you'll ever meet, so infringing free speech is not something I'd be in favor of. My stance is people should not be inhibited from throwing insults... provided it does not result in harassment. Harassment requires more than a single condescending quip thrown in the hallway. When it becomes unrelenting or physical, that's when you can kiss your freedom of speech rights goodbye, because their right to be in school or whatever uninhibited overrides free speech any day.

Right, your freedom ends when you destroy someone elses'.

[MountainDew~]

Right, your freedom ends when you destroy someone elses'.

[Kaijyuu]

More accurately, when two people's rights seem to conflict (such as the right to speech and right to not be harassed), the repressive one wins out. You don't suddenly lose your right to freedom of speech after committing harassment or assault or vandalism or whatever... it just doesn't apply in those situations, because someone else's right overrides it.

[DaveSW]

That is the point. 
If you declare that all black people are evil abominations, that is considered harassment.  A teacher would be fired for saying that, and any black student who said that they felt harassed by the statement would be the more than justified in feeling that way.

This bill specifically protects students/teachers by saying that they can make those kind of statements, as long as they have religious or moral reasons behind it.  Never mind that that exception completely opens the flood gates to allow all sorts of harassment, so long as the bullies hide behind their ill informed version of the first amendment. 

[lirmont]

I'm not a lawyer, but this is tort law territory. The point is, exercising your freedom of speech before and after this bill will not be illegal. However, you can certainly be sued for your actions if they're actionable. If you assault someone (this is a threat of violence), batter someone (this is any unconsented to physical contact), falsely imprison someone (detaining them or preventing their movement without their consent), intentionally inflict emotional distress upon someone, defame a person's character to a 3rd party in written format (libel) or verbal format (slander), invade someone's privacy (unconsented use of the person's information for commercial purposes, intrusion upon the person's day-to-day affairs or their seculsion, publishing information about the person that falsely depicts the person or their actions, public discolusre of private facts about the person), or appropriate a person's identity for your own benefit, you can be sued under tort law, but that doesn't make the tort (the damage) committed against the person illegal. There are other things that can make any of those things illegal, sure, but the point is that none of those things by themselves are crimes in the United States of America. You will never (and probably should never) have any right to get someone thrown into prison for non-criminal activity. However, it is your express right to sue someone if their behavior is actionable (that is, if it falls into one of those categories, can be proved in a court of law, and you take it to court in the form of a law suit). Does this solve your problem? No, not really. What remedy can you get out of a tort lawsuit? Money? An injunction against the person in a repeated or continuing case? That prevents one person from treating you badly at great personal cost.

Not to change the topic at hand but to show a parallel, there have been many anti-Sharia Law bills put forward stating basically that Sharia Law will not be permitted (within the state proposing it). However, even if such a bill passes into law, the parts of it that were illegal or tortuous before the bill passed will continue to be illegal and/or tortuous afterwards. That is, killing someone who gives up the religion of Islam still results in the act of manslaughter, which may or may not be criminal depending on malice aforethought and several other things. Beating someone up for dressing immodestly (without the person's consent) is still a tort; the person could sue for those damages.

Anyway, it's sad that children (who may see adults or popular topics as authoritative and unquestionably true) have to deal with this as part of their environment growing up, but you've no doubt seen (if you use YouTube) the umpteen videos about "It gets better!" Talking about appropriate behavior amongst peers, helping someone when they are unable or unwilling to protect themselves (though you may have to defend this choice in court), and generally exercising your freedom of speech to act as a counter-weight to a malicious or otherwise damaging source's freedom of speech is what you are left with.

That said, the first person who steps into the territory of criminal law with that law in mind will very likely be criminally charged, because its still criminal even with that law. Would the sentence severity take into consideration that law? I don't see why not, but there are all the other precedents to consider as well. There is no "getting away with it" if it's criminal, and, for the cases where it isn't illegal, there is only "getting away with it" if you don't help yourself to your legal rights in the presence of actionable behavior as described by tort law.

From a personal place, I think taking the actions of others to heart in part is damaging to yourself. On the other hand, if you attempt to understand what and why the other person is doing what they're doing, I think it's uplifting. It misdirects the brunt of whatever anger, sadness, or injustice you might immediately feel towards the person, and it provides you with an outside of the situation perspective. Imagine if you never grasped the concept of what a motive is and its serious purpose in driving human actions. You would miss out on some incredible things, like being able to understand or respect the feelings of a group of people who have just deposed their dictatorial leader largely by themselves. Without understanding the motive, it's just people cheering amid pictures of a dead man's body, right? The point is, figure out why the person (or people) behave the way they do, and use that as part of your strength. In the case of a bully, they may not know any better; they may know perfectly well. It may be partially unintentional; it may be completely sinister. If you don't express or have any curiosity about it, then you're just going to be mad/angry/sad/depressed/alienated/isolated/frustrated about something that can never ever change, since it already happened, but you can educate yourself about it (and move on in the process to protect yourself).

[formerdeathcorps]

NOTE: I'm not specifically opposing any of the above posters.  I'm just pointing out my thoughts on the matter.

I personally don't think laws governing most behaviors can even be subject to state laws without the laws themselves being too arbitrary to be enforced.  In this case, anyone can publicly claim his moral teaching tells him Group X is bad.  If a member of Group X disagrees and claims persecution under this law, how would the court settle it?  The person who made the public claim has just as valid a right under the First Amendment as the violated member of Group X under this law.  (Note that the 1st Amendment does have exceptions, such as provocations.)  Obviously, the bias of the judge and jury would decide in such a case, as well as the strength of the lawyers of both sides.  (That, or the judge throws the case out of court as irrelevant.)  Now, if you consider all the public money wasted in this "worst-case" scenario, we may as well not have such a law.

One may defend this law by stating that the above is unrealistic; it probably will not come before a court for some time (if at all) and thus will actively affect many districts before it is challenged (and thus set precedents and raise awareness).  Unfortunately, what a reasonable person considers to be bullying isn't so obviously defined when it refers to beliefs not everyone shares.  For example, if Child A pushes Child B in the mud and makes fun of his mother, most people would consider Child A to be the bully.  However, if an effeminate Child B is routinely picked on by Child A as a "faggot", if the teacher privately sides with Child A, as do most of the people in the school, the teacher may see nothing wrong even if the parents do.  Local biases of each district will decide; thus, DaveSW's scenario certainly may happen in more conservative districts.  However, that doesn't preclude all the other biases of the people in this society.  The "fear" that some people may still be picked on will occur in every direction, depending on whose thinking is in the "unwanted minority" for a given area.
If we wish to argue that Dave's scenario is 10x more likely because of the superior mobilization of evangelical groups, and this law will only be used to further their pressure, we are arguing a red herring since even if that's true, that doesn't provide a reason to create a "liberal" version of this law; it's in fact a better reason to not have such a law for ANY party and more appropriately spend state attention to address economic and social desperation, the macro-level cause of this 'religious rebirth'.
If you wish to further argue that opposing a more "liberal" version of this law goes against the best traditions of US law, namely the Civil Rights Act, we still stumble upon far more disturbing quandaries.
1) The Civil Rights Act was justifiable under the Commerce Clause and the need to protect the sanctity of the vote.  Thus, the US government could use the power of the purse to punish public institutions operating under racist practices and use the full might of the Justice Department against attempts to block voting.  (Yes, I know that does not truly address inequality, which needs to be attacked systematically, and not with minor bandages.)  However, if the law said only "racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, ableist, or classist" rhetoric is illegal (political correctness), it crosses the boundary from punishing actions to punishing thoughts (because it's possible for a bully to only be emotionally snide without being openly provocative or physically violent/threatening).  Not only does this distort reality (there are blacks, Jews, women, gays... in the elite stratum whom you are now not allowed to publicly criticize in mainstream society), it is also anti-democratic by restricting what people are allowed to think (not just hateful and malicious thoughts but vaguely any oppositional thought against anyone who belongs to a group that was previously marginalized).  Obviously, if a person's job is to influence others, his thoughts do matter; hence, the teacher shouldn't say "all black people are abominations", but this law only addresses what students do to each other.
2) You set the precedent for arbitrary restrictions on the freedom of speech.  It won't be long (in an electoral system) for the political opponents of this law, empowered by an election, to scrap these rules only to institute new ones banning the rhetoric of their political opponents.  That's the surefire path to political degradation of democratic norms to the point of open conflict.  Nor would it be difficult to designate other kinds of thinking as "thoughtcrime" in other contexts, against other groups.  Schoolchildren are simply the test case.
3) To enforce the punishment of bullying thoughtcrime, you must create the mass mentality of snitching.  In fact, the current version of the bill does provide for this.  See items (K) and (L) on Page 3-4.  The fact reports are not anonymous and false reports will be punished as bullying (see most of Page 4) can equally be abused by corrupt administrators to dismiss or discredit students that the administrators don't like as well as faculty and parents who defend them.  The very fact students now know about bullying and are told to report it, while most students have lower impulse control than adults and are more fickle, while many instances are not clearly defined as bully/victim (more like instigator/resistor with role reversal), you'll have way too many partial and false positives to even merit such strict punishment, while students now learn to manipulate the system against people they don't like.
For most children, they will be emotionally battered by a classmate sometime in their life.  Most children don't suffer permanent mental damage from it, and the bully is usually socially isolated over time by his peers.  As they grow up, they learn to deal with such stress while around half of all bullies learn to stop being a jerk.  To penalize every instance of this to and fro might be psychologically unsound as well.  Furthermore, most children tend to vary their level of aggression towards each other; sometimes it'll run all the way up to assault/battery/defamation, and other times, it'll just be snide sniping; so an adult needs to practice discernment.  Even what might be "actionable", i.e. aggressive and threatening behavior, might written off as just a bad day for Student Y.  It needs to be consistent; it would always be the same bully/victim pair (or the same group of people going after the same crowd of victims) without any significant role reversals.
For the people who are persistently teased for being "weird or different" (and not your typical playground victims), the schools primarily need more resources so such kids can express themselves and gain friends (with either fellow children or with a trusted adult) without having to resort to suicide or drugs.  Education, not coercion!

3) is probably unfounded.  I trust most teachers in school have the common sense to realize this can't be taken too seriously and most students are too stuck in their own little universes to pay too much attention to this (especially since most kids have a "no snitching" code when it comes to doing things wrong and adults).  That being said though, since laws like this are being passed nationwide, I don't doubt there's a propaganda video being made for teachers and students to make them reconsider.

In other words, I don't like this law because I don't think we can easily enforce such a law fairly, such laws detract attention from far more significant problems in the schools (funding and equipment, educational equity and quality, teacher training and pay), and coercive attempts to tighten the law and heavily crack down on bullying would be counterproductive to democracy and normal child development.  That being said, the Democrats have no solution: their version of the law, an attempt to enforce anti-bullying against thoughts demeaning a traditionally disparaged group, would only exacerbate the latter aspect in the name of political correctness.

[Kuraudo Sutoraifu]

Holy Crap, Wall-o-text. FDC, you need some breaks in there.  Good stuff, though.  I especially agree with this:

In other words, I don't like this law because I don't think we can easily enforce such a law fairly, such laws detract attention from far more significant problems in the schools.

But, I don't want get off topic and discuss that.

Wow, just wow. 
Do you understand what that section allows?  The bill specifically states that everything is peachy keen as long as it is a religious or moral conviction. 

Throwing around the first amendment like that is bullshit.  Freedom of speech applies to a lot more than just morals and religion.  So why single those out as being ok?

Again, I disagree that it says that bullying is peachy-keen as long as it is a religious or moral conviction.  The laws is saying "we can't make laws against that kind of stuff."  Which is true.  But like lirmont said, even with a a religious or moral conviction, you can still prosecuted for infringing on another persons rights.  If Person A murdered Person B out of moral conviction, even though Person A enacts the first amendment, it would not hold up because has infringed on another person's rights.  Similarly, if Person publicly printed and distriduted lies about Person B, even though Person A enacts the first amendment, it would not hold up because it has infringed on another person's rights.

Instead we get bills like this.  You can't bully others, but constantly telling someone they are going to hell and that they need to repent because god hates them is ok, because somehow that isn't bullying.

I do believe it is bullying. I do believe it is wrong. I do believe it is immoral to berate someone that way. But again, it does not say that it is not bullying. What it does say is that a school cannot make a policy that religious or moral belief.  Which is true already. It does not say that a school cannot act against religion inspired gay bashing.  It does not say that a school cannot act against religion inspired religion bashing.  It does not say that a school cannot act against _______ inspired _______ bashing.  But simply, that a school cannot make policy violating the first amendment.

The way that I see you portray it is that unless there is a law specifically forbidding an action, the government advocates that action.  As it is, they are no state-wide school bullying laws in Michigan. So right now, Dave, the way that you seem to portray it, any and all bullying is already advocated in Michigan school. If that is not what you believe, my bad, but I feel you would need to revise you stance then.  Because that it what it seems you are saying.

Also, why do you lump those dissenting from what you say into together as conservatives? I find that rather presumptuous and close-minded.  I just don't see a gay-hating bill where you clearly do. This isn't about conservative or liberal.  It's about what we perceive the bill to say.  If I am wrong, and every Michigan school bully's parent researches for some obscure law and presents it to the school counselor/teacher/principal/whoever to prove that their school cannot legally create policy to stop their child from bullying, and the school does not punish the bully anyway, then I concede to you. 

But I just don't see that happening.  What I think will happen is that if bully is caught bullying, he will be punished.  Even if a bully's parent would press the issue, I still don't think this law would come up.  In fact, the only reason I think a parent would know about this law would be because people are making a huge stink about it.  Otherwise, it would only be brought up by lawyers which, if lawyers are involved, it probably has moved beyond just bullying and has moved to some sort of criminal action.  In which case, you have moved beyond this bullying law into an arena that which was pointed out earlier has entered an arena where the bully's first amendment rights are forfeited in light of them infringing on another person's rights.

Minor note: I am operating under the assumption that you have read the whole bill.  If you haven't, please do.

tl;dr Don't worry about it.  Let go gets something to eat and talk it out in person.

[Pickle Girl Fanboy]

How is this helping?

Do you want me to lump you in with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, while we're lumping people together?  If you need me to remind you, the former was a person who sued Huslter for intentionally inflicted emotional damages (bullying) because they ran an advertisement featuring a parody of Mr. Falwell.  Do you want me to lump you in with him, because I'm sure I can find a pretty good argument that will pull that off - just say the word.

And GS, I never pretended to understand the Tea Party movement, so I didn't say much about them.  Since you apparentally don't understand what the OWS movement is about, could you extend me the same courtesy?

spoiler

If anyone wants to know, OWS is about the following:
*Wall Street, banking companies, corporations, and the wealthy in the USA have benefited from the economic crashes of the past 10 years, many of which were caused by their own personal incompetance (Enron, the Housing crash/unregulated derivatives scandals).  And after they screwed up, they weren't held to the same standards as the average American, but were instead bailed out, first by a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, and next by a Democratic President and a Republican Congress.  Not only that, but once they were bailed out, they refused to do what the gov't understood they would do, which was use the money with which they were bailed out to begin hiring and loaning again, to jump-start the economy.
*So what we have in the USA isn't actually capitalism.  Instead, it is Corporate Socialism - welfare for the wealthy and for corporations, financed by tax increases on the rest of us ( in the form sales taxes, property taxes, and, if the Republicans have their way, a flat tax which will increase taxes on the majority of Americans while reducing taxes for the wealthiest minority) and the destruction of social safety nets (such as food stamps, Social Security, Pell Grants,...).
*What Occupy Wall Street proposes is this: that we stop both the bailouts and the subsudies for the wealthy and for corporations and that they be treated as the rest of us are.  We don't want socialism for the poor, we want capitalism for the rich.
**OWS aren't like the mid-century Baby Boomer Liberals.  We don't want more pay for less work.  If anything, we are more like the peasants than middle-class workers, in that we want jobs that pay enough for us to afford food, clothing, housing, and an education.  I personally have never made more than $7.40/hour, since I got my first job at age 16, and I'm now almost 26.  But incomes for the wealthiest 1% have nearly tripled in the same time period.  They can say they earned that money, that they worked hard for it, but I say bullshit.  I say they worked hard at moving numbers around so they could make other people's money into their money.  I say they sell us illusions that we are all actually middle-class Americans, and that this is just an economic hiccup.  I say that the Major news outlets were complicit in the bank's schemes - that those news networks silenced those who were waving papers in the air and calling bullshit, and that these same networks are now trying to portray the OWS movement as a bunch of drug-addled kids led astray by hippie pied-pipers.

I'll end here, but before I do I have one more thing to say - explicitly to DaveSW, but also to anyone else who's reading this.  Every moment spent arguing with someone on the internet, every moment you spend trying to argue that the Tea Party is not a legitamate movement, is a moment wasted.  Some people will never accept any evidence which disproves their own beliefs, and if you argue with them than you are stupider than they are.  Let them fall away from you, and remember what really matters: making sure that your kids will inherit a future that is better than the one you have.  Arguing with someone on the internet won't accomplish this, and neither will toeing the party line without first trying to understand what it is you're reading.  The world can be what you make it, as long as you don't get distracted from what really matters.

I don't care what this bill says, because no law will ever stop bullying.  It seems like the Democrats who wrote it anticipated the religous backlash against the bill (the argument being, "I believe gays should be bullied because it will help them stop being gay and not go to hell"), and worded an incredibly ambigious statement in which everyone will see whatever they want to see.  Since you always want to see evidence of Republicans and Conservatives doing horrible things, that's what you saw.  I can't comment on the usefulness of your blinders, except to say that topics like this aren't helping.  There are real problems out there, ones more urgent than the latest mindfuck-inducing piece of legislation our gov't produced.