Cyberbullying Bill Gets Chilly Reception

Bullying is bad. However, I believe being bullied as a kid helped me be the strong person I am today.

Free Speech Is good. However, how do you draw a line between exercising your right to free speech, and online harassment? Is it possible?

I suppose If I were being harassed, or bullied, I would most likely log off of whatever site I was on, and find something else to do.

RZV717-

Sounds to me like you might be a proponent of that ancient concept of accepting responsibility for one's own actions...

Hi cwarner7 11,

that ancient concept of accepting responsibility for one's own actions...

You can't possibly mean that! How can we be held responsible/accountable when we're only human and can't help what we do?

Mike

That's a novel concept these days.

The difference in the case being referenced by this proposed bill is that at least one adult was involved with the cyber-bullying and "you should kill yourself" messages sent to a minor (13 year old girl). The proposed bill goes wayyyyy beyond this type of criminal behavior in that it extends to any person who might be substantially upset by online comments. I think it's just another attempt by certain Liberals to bolster hate crime legislation to silence freedom of speech concerning moral issues.

How do they define cyber bullying....

This forum is a good example. The debates can get heated, and you walk away. The next debate the one you debated with you are on the same ground in agreement.

or

How would this effect guests with low self esteem that looks at getting into it....anomalously, then how do they handle that....shut down the site.

Stand up for yourself, find a support group or avoid getting yourself in the situations.

Stop depending on having the government decide whats good for you or to step in. That's the biggest problem.

The real problem is that we usually already have laws on the books that can cover these kinds of cases. Just like texting while driving. I'll bet every state in the U.S. has laws regarding distracted driving or negligent operation or whatever. It's just people (politicians in particular) like to grandstand and show the world what a great person they are by legislating laws that pinpoint infractions down to every last detail. Why can't we just let the police enforce the laws already in place instead of creating more volumes of arcane code?

The real problem is that we usually already have laws on the books that can cover these kinds of cases.

that is a problem, its seems to be easier for politicians to create new laws to pacify issues at hand than it is to enforce the laws already in place for these issues.

so that the politician can remark, "I feel your pain........."

what I was getting at from the last sentence from post #6 , and yes, pretty much want you said.

The real problem is individual behavior and differing standards by each person. We probably all would agree that anger isn't pleasant on the receiving end. We all have gotten angry at drivers (I'm skipping to the extra example brought up by another poster) that we deem rude, distracted or who think other cars on the road are somehow intruding on their "domain".

But at the root of the OP is anger. Most of the time when we get angry we feel it is justified. That is because in an instant we are applying our own "standard" of behavior to everyone around us. Sometimes a large percentage of others would agree with our standard, but many times, if we stop and analyze the situation, we've applied a standard that is ours and not shared by everyone. Political and religious viewpoints are the 2 most cited examples, in this regard. Again, the result of clashing viewpoints is usually anger.

This is why morality can't be legislated. Transgressions of morality can and have become the laws we live by. But not everyone agrees with all laws. Laws are for punishing transgressors but do little or nothing to prevent the transgressions. For serious crimes like murder, it is usually uncontrolled anger that causes the criminal act. Transgressions like Bernie Madoff are due to greed married with almost total self-absorption. If everyone spent as much time criticizing their own selves (sometimes termed self-introspection) and trying to correct flaws in their own behavior there would be much less need for laws.

Ah, but the problem still becomes who's "standard" do we use to measure our behavior for correcting? Analyzing our behavior using the golden rule reduces the standard to a basic level that doesn't require any particular philosophy or religious tenets. If you wouldn't want what your are doing to others done to you, then try to eliminate that behavior. Simple in concept, but OH SO HARD to do.