Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles is successfully advancing SB 5288 "Requiring cyberbullying to be included in school district harassment prevention policies".
(2) "Harassment, intimidation, or bullying" means any intentional electronic, written, verbal, or physical act, including but not limited to one shown to be motivated by any characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080(3), or other distinguishing characteristics ... Nothing in this section requires the affected student to actuallyI better post this photo now, before Sen. Kohl-Welles and the Nannycrats go to the next step and make this sort of thing a felony.
possess a characteristic that is a basis for the harassment, intimidation, or bullying.
Or maybe it would just be the usual, selective enforcement from Democrats whereby actions are only condemned when they come from conservatives.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 9, 2007 03:52 PMJust think - a new UW post graduate program: Cyberbullying Counseling. Classes to be held in the new Vulcan Incorporated Memorial Hall. Let the grants begin!
If the former, that would be ironic since you and your friends here worship strict, conservative private schools which would expel a bully of any sort in a second. (Actually, loose, liberal private schools would, too.) And it would be especially ironic if you sought the help of the ACLU to fight this bill.
If the latter, why is bullying by computer any different than by paper or spoken word? Is it less dangerous? More valuable?
2. The questions to be addressed are why and what
can be done about it.
3. My theory is this: Values are difficult to
teach because a secular progressive agenda
often equates values with religion. For
example, the Ten Commendments is a values
statement.
4. Government programs are not good at changing
behavior and often make the behavior they
attempt to change worse. Values are very
important to life choices. The largest
experiment of secular progressive ideology
has been government programs aimed at low
income people. It has been a tremendous
failure and has just about destroyed the
Black community. Star Parker writes on
this subject.
5. Conclusion: Governments are not very good
at legislating what a strong values foundation
of respect for others can do voluntarily.
Anyway, the law in question doesn't make bullying illegal; it requires schools to do things (such as teaching values) to reduce bullying, and in particular, to include all types of bullying in the existing law rather than excluding one particular technology.
And we agree that values should be taught. But if you want to find a values statement that is separate from religion, is the Ten Commandments really the best you can do?
Posted by: Bruce on February 9, 2007 07:40 PMYes, the Ten Commandments is the best I can do. Others that are smarter than me can probably do better.
Posted by: WVH on February 9, 2007 07:52 PMI like her in a sort of a way, but she and Ken J. are so loopy they are of no use at all.
Perhaps the bottle?
Posted by: caleb on February 9, 2007 10:09 PMWould posting a "Separated at Birth?" pairing be considered cyber-bullying?
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on February 9, 2007 10:32 PMExcellent proposal for dual photos. Here's one to use but I'm a bit stymied whether it's Sheehan or Kohl-Welles.
I thought the exact same thing before I read the topic.
Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2007 11:59 AMMaybe her proposed law is flawed, but there are definitely instances when the bullies use place such as myspace and the internet to aid them in their harassment of other students.
Stefan, would you be opposed to action on this if say a racist student put up an anti-semetic myspace page against a Jewish student and did something heinous like urged the Jewish student be gassed like the Holocaust?
Children can be very cruel.
Posted by: pbj on February 10, 2007 12:05 PMincluding but not limited to one shown to be motivated by any characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080(3), or other distinguishing characteristics ... Nothing in this section requires the affected student to actually possess a characteristic that is a basis for the harassment, intimidation, or bullying.
The current law sort of defines bullying, but take away the "protected classes" and not much of a definition is left.
What then is bullying (legally)? Does it come down to anything that upsets someone else? Would the typical discourse seen here and at HA be considered a violation of this law if students did the same thing? If it were discovered that a student made a comment on a blog disparaging another student, would they be in violation?
Is bullying limited to acts (or words that promote acts) of violence torwards someone else? I'm not sure it is clear in the law.
Would a text message that says, "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny" be a class c felony as the law states?
The current law seemed a little broad to me and this new addition makes it even more broad.
If you want something to be really riled up about, try SB 5719 -- establishing a state-level Do Not Mail list/program that will cost taxpayer money and severely damage small businesses. There is already a national Do Not Mail list that is compiled at the expense of the advertising industry. While compliance is only mandatory for association members, it applies to most of the folks who send out major junk mail or sell mailing lists. Small, mom & pop businesses aren't required to comply.
HOWEVER, with the new bill (and HB 1205), EVERY small business that mails in the state will have to BUY the Do Not Mail list from the state. Most small businesses spend anywhere from $500 to $2,000 on flyers, etc. Now they'll have to spend another $300 to the state and to computer programmers to clean their mailing list every time. Suddenly, that $500 quickie mailing to promote a sale or grand opening costs 60% more.
There is also no guarantee that it'll stop the stuff that REALLY clogs up the mailbox -- the newspaper-like grocery/hardware/coupon mailings and the ValPak mailers that aren't sent to specific people.
Posted by: The Real Mark on February 12, 2007 07:45 PMIf you want something to be really riled up about, try SB 5719 -- establishing a state-level Do Not Mail list/program that will cost taxpayer money and severely damage small businesses. There is already a national Do Not Mail list that is compiled at the expense of the advertising industry. While compliance is only mandatory for association members, it applies to most of the folks who send out major junk mail or sell mailing lists. Small, mom & pop businesses aren't required to comply.
HOWEVER, with the new bill (and HB 1205), EVERY small business that mails in the state will have to BUY the Do Not Mail list from the state. Most small businesses spend anywhere from $500 to $2,000 on flyers, etc. Now they'll have to spend another $300 to the state and to computer programmers to clean their mailing list every time. Suddenly, that $500 quickie mailing to promote a sale or grand opening costs 60% more.
There is also no guarantee that it'll stop the stuff that REALLY clogs up the mailbox -- the newspaper-like grocery/hardware/coupon mailings and the ValPak mailers that aren't sent to specific people.
Posted by: The Real Mark on February 12, 2007 07:45 PM