Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484358)

1. Propose a punishment you think is proportional.

2. Now do it again, except this time the slur was posted at midnight on Instagram.

3. Now do it again, adding the fact that the victim elsewhere spread the rumor that the perpetrator, a seventh grader, blew a guy in the bathroom.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484350)

Good analogy. You'll note that even today, there's no prohibition on a spouse psychologically tormenting the other spouse. The law draws the appropriate line: Not our problem until it involves physical violence.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484356)

Whoa whoa whoa. I want to be clear about the real estate I'm defending. I am not suggesting that we must tolerate bullying, verbal or physical. I am saying that we cannot prevent it with the tools we have in our society. The fact that this distinction is so quickly lost is evidence of my argument that the modern American mind cannot be satisfied with the punishment of evil. Evil has to be disempowered.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484351)

I don't know about you, but in my high school, way-back-when, I don't recall any of the gay kids being picked on. That would've been considered the ultimate in "dick moves" that would have branded one a social pariah.

If you're telling me that a majority of kids today think picking on a kid because he's gay is alright, or that they'd turn their head the other way when someone did it, I'm calling bullshit.

The media promotes outlier instances of intolerance. They are not the rule. And they certainly aren't a basis for legislative changes.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484358)

1. Propose a punishment you think is proportional.

2. Now do it again, except this time the slur was posted at midnight on Instagram.

3. Now do it again, adding the fact that the victim elsewhere spread the rumor that the perpetrator, a seventh grader, blew a guy in the bathroom.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 484361)

This is why you are full of shit -- you start with the notion that the only issues are these extremes.

If a kid calls another kid a faggot once, I really don't care. I care when a group of kids threaten, harass, routinely slam on Facebook, etc. All things that fall short of a physical attack.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 484363)

Right. After all, a 15-yo girl can always divorce her school.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484368)

We cannot pass laws prohibiting people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook. The only applicable laws are those for defamation.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 484370)

Sorry to get sucked back into this, but this is not true. It is an untrue statement, just as I suspect it is untrue that your high school was the one place in the history of the fucking world where anti-gay slurs resulted in ostracization of the slur-speaker by a noble and united band of wise-beyond-their-years students.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484371)

We could pass those laws. And they'd be stupid, futile, and unconstitutional.

California's new anti revenge porn law is a great example of well meaning idiocy. How is the state going to prove a photo was uploaded with the intent of revenge? And to the extent it may be intent-neutral (strict liability), how will it not violate the First Amendment?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484368)

We cannot pass laws prohibiting people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook. The only applicable laws are those for defamation. You have offered an incurable situation which proves Atticus's point regarding the futility of many efforts to stem bullying.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484344)

The harm is that we've already got more than enough idiotic interference on the part of law enforcement and government. We're just getting to the point where govt is realizing it has no business telling people they can't smoke pot, and should not be deciding who can and cannot marry. And so given these strides in paring down its officious interactions with the public regarding these matters, it should now start regulating other private behaviors?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484344)

The red tape created by endless do-gooder laws is endless. It hampers our economy. It creates needless bureaucratic work. And it's all counterproductive. The more you teach people to ask the govt for intervention, the more they'll lose the ability to handle the problem on their own.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 484372)

No, there are many laws that currently exist that prevent "people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook."

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 484354)

A colon followed by an open parentheses will get you there.