Wednesday, December 16, 2009



Students' right to be nasty on net upheld

Schools have no right to attack free speech unless they can show "disruption" to teaching
"A US District Court judge has sided with a student who posted an allegedly bullying video on YouTube, saying the school went too far in suspending her. Amid rising concerns over cyber bullying, and even calls for its criminalisation, some courts, parents and free speech advocates are fighting back: students, they say, have a right to be nasty in cyberspace.

One morning in May last year, a student walked crying into Janice Hart's office at a Beverly Hills school. She had been humiliated and couldn't face going to class, the girl told the counsellor. The night before, a classmate had posted a video on YouTube with a group of other students bad-mouthing her, calling her "spoiled", a "brat" and a "slut".

Text and instant messages had been flying ever since. Half the class must have seen the video by now, the girl said. The counsellor took the problem to the principal, who took it to a district administrator, who asked the school district's lawyers what they could do. In the end, citing "cyber bullying" concerns, school officials suspended the girl who posted the video for two days.

That student took the case to court, saying her right to free speech had been violated.

Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in his judgment: "To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offence to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school's activities, runs afoul [of the law].

Source

49 comments:

Bobby said...

And yet, cyber-bullying leaves a trail of evidence for everyone to see, it's no different than writing a hate letter and signing with your real name.

Basically, this is no different from sexting, if you are a kid and other people can see the crimes you commit, then duh, you will be found and punished!

Stan B said...

Cyber-Bullying is a trumped up charge - what the victim in this case needed to do was sue her nemesis for slander or libel. While "brat" and "spoiled" certainly fall into the "opinion" department, "slut" is a specific accusation regarding behavior, and probably actionable under the law.

Wes said...

She may have been humiliated, however the posting may have been true. The court made an excellent ruling.

Anonymous said...

"Freedom is like pure, clean water, in that, it is essential to our way of life. But we must not forget what uncontrolled water can do."

Dr. Yes said...

Good point Stan. That's probably the best way to counter this type of personal attack. Nothing gets peoples attention faster than taking their money, assuming you win.

Anonymous said...

Hello slander suit.

Now, if the asses who created this video had filmed it on campus, used school equipment, or even notified other students during school hours...then maybe the school could have been justified, but it doesn't appear that was the case.

At least this time it wasn't a teacher or principal reacting without asking legal council.

Anonymous said...

Bobby said...
And yet, cyber-bullying leaves a trail of evidence for everyone to see, it's no different than writing a hate letter and signing with your real name.

Last time I checked, writing a hate letter and signing your name was not against the law. As long as you don't threaten violence, there is no reason to punish someone in this country.

Anonymous said...

When did parents stop teaching their kids not to be assholes? Why haven't any of the parents of the kids who made the video been contacted. Personally if it was my daughter who experienced this, you'd better believe I would be going after the parents. If someone is going to use the web to humilate, why not respond in kind? Doesn't take much to set up a website about shitty parents who raise douche bag kids. List all publically available info, address, work place, social affiliations, phone number, whatever.

You go after my kid, I'm coming after you and I have no sense of shame or proportion.

Bobby said...

"Last time I checked, writing a hate letter and signing your name was not against the law. As long as you don't threaten violence, there is no reason to punish someone in this country."

---If you send me a hate mail and I show it to my teacher, you don't think you're not going to get in trouble? That youtube video is out there for everyone to see, the parties did not bother to wear masks or distort their voices.

What kids don't realize about the Internet is that it's not really private. Private is you beating the crap out of me in a dark corner, in which case it will be my word against yours and if I have no evidence chances are I will have little credibility.

Besides, it doesn't matter where the video was created, schools have Internet, cellphones have internet, that youtube video can be seen anywhere.

Honestly, kids are clueless today. Think about sexting, when I was growing up we didn't take pictures whenever we play doctor.

Besides, a bully should have the decency to confront his victim face to face and not act like a pussy that needs to make a video to degrade somebody.


"When did parents stop teaching their kids not to be assholes?"

---When they decided to pay more attention to their careers

I know we all hate political correctness, but this isn't about PC, this is about common decency. What do you think woudl happen to an adult if he makes fun of his boss in a youtube video? People get fired for much less.

Anonymous said...

"Besides, a bully should have the decency to confront his victim face to face and not act like a pussy that needs to make a video to degrade somebody."

If he/she did that, he/she wouldn't be a bully!

Anonymous said...

Кажется, это подойдет.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1058:

The problem is, parents today are more interested in the liberal indoctrination camps raising their children than they are. It's a pathetic state of affairs we're in these days, and this is a prime example of what happens when parents are this inept at raising children.

Anonymous said...

---If you send me a hate mail and I show it to my teacher, you don't think you're not going to get in trouble? That youtube video is out there for everyone to see, the parties did not bother to wear masks or distort their voices.

And here I thought you were for "free speech."

The fact of the matter is that if I send you a piece of mail describing you as an ignorant, pseudo-conservative hack , and you were to show that to your teacher because you felt it was "hate mail," no, I wouldn't get in trouble. That is the point of this thread. A kid was upset because someone called her names and said nasty things about her. Is that morally wrong? Yes. Is it legal wrong? No.

What do you think woudl happen to an adult if he makes fun of his boss in a youtube video? People get fired for much less.

Yet these aren't employees. They are kids in a state mandated environment. The two situations are not the same.

Stan B said...

Anonymous 2:06 asked "Is that legally wrong?"

If the message contained slanderous or libelous material, then yes, it is legally wrong, and the victim has recourse to the courts.

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.


"Slut" is the false and/or demeaning statement.
"Publication" is posting the video on youtube.
"Negligence" - well, you could make a case for actual "malice of intent" here.
"Emotional Distress" is the damage, which the father of any teenage girl knows is acute, real, and pounding the other little witch's face in with a baseball bat would not be unreasonable....but I digress.

Bobby said...

"If he/she did that, he/she wouldn't be a bully!"

---Tell that to the bullies I've dealt with in high school. I once had to throw a chair against the blackboard, then they thought I was a psycho which stoped the bullying. In fact, the school shrink supported me.


"And here I thought you were for "free speech."

---I am for free speech, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for said speech.

The Dixie Chicks have the right to play music, country-western radio stations have the right not to give them a venue. Reaggae singer Buju Banton has the right to sing about pouring acid on gays, venues in America have the right to cancel his concerts.


"The fact of the matter is that if I send you a piece of mail describing you as an ignorant, pseudo-conservative hack , and you were to show that to your teacher because you felt it was "hate mail," no, I wouldn't get in trouble."

----That's because opinion enjoys the highest protection when it comes to free speech. If however you call me a criminal without proof, that's defamation if spoken, libel if written. There's a reason people on TV use the word "alledgedly" a lot. That word can prevent a lot of lawsuits.


"That is the point of this thread. A kid was upset because someone called her names and said nasty things about her. Is that morally wrong? Yes. Is it legal wrong? No."

---Are you saying schools can't teach kids morality or right from wrong? Kids that are sent to detention don't always break the law, you ought to know that.


"Yet these aren't employees. They are kids in a state mandated environment. The two situations are not the same."

---1. Parents can choose to homeschool, unlike Germany, we don't force people to send their kids to public school. 2. Schools aren't a free for all where anything goes. 3. Schools are supposed to prepare kids for the real world.

Besides, I once called a girl a slut to her face, and yes, I was held accountable by my actions, I wasn't expelled but I was given a lecture about why what I did was wrong. A youtube video is a lot worse, as far as I'm concerned, the punishment is acceptable.

Anonymous said...

---I am for free speech, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for said speech.

But those consequences must be within the law.

----That's because opinion enjoys the highest protection when it comes to free speech.

Right. So the opinion of the kid is protected speech.

If however you call me a criminal without proof, that's defamation if spoken, libel if written.

Actually it isn't. There is more to it than that.

---Are you saying schools can't teach kids morality or right from wrong?

While I am not saying that, I believe that. The morality of a teacher may contradict those of the parent. It is the parent's responsibility to raise a child with morals - not the schools.

Kids that are sent to detention don't always break the law, you ought to know that.

This kid was not sent to detention. Apparently, she broke no laws. She broke no stated school policy. She caused no disruption in the school.

Courts have rules that the schools may get involved when the speech disrupts or may disrupt the school. That didn't happen here. The school never cited any disruption concerns and therefore they can't discipline the kid on what she said.

---1. Parents can choose to homeschool, unlike Germany, we don't force people to send their kids to public school.

Yet the environment of a state school is mandated by the state.

2. Schools aren't a free for all where anything goes.

No one is claiming they are. The schools must abide with the law of the land. They didn't in this case.

3. Schools are supposed to prepare kids for the real world.

Wait. Aren't you the one who always says that people need tougher skin? I guess not.

A youtube video is a lot worse, as far as I'm concerned, the punishment is acceptable.

The punishment was overly harsh and contrary to the law.

Anonymous said...

Kids these days... I have a friend who works as a bouncer at a night club. According to him young people today are very much aware of their rights but not so much about responsibilities. They have no problem with throwing classes around the bar but if they themselves are thrown out they call the police and accuse the bouncer of violating their rights. And it's all on video of course because of cell phone cameras. They just don't understand the realities of society.

The Finn said...

"Кажется, это подойдет."

поговорите английскую язык пожалуйста. Мы не понимает.

Bobby said...

"But those consequences must be within the law."

---If a frustrated student calls a teacher stupid, can he not send him to the principal's office? Yes he can.


"Right. So the opinion of the kid is protected speech."

---In a court of law, yes, outside the courts, no. Schools have the power to discipline the kids, making a youtube video is the same as calling the girl a slut in front of the principal. Back in my day we didn't even swear in front of teachers, now the kids make videos the entire world can see.


"Actually it isn't. There is more to it than that."

---That's what I learned when I took Communication Law. There's libel and defamation, one is written while the other is spoken.


"While I am not saying that, I believe that. The morality of a teacher may contradict those of the parent. It is the parent's responsibility to raise a child with morals - not the schools."

---You do realize that schools used to give bad kids corporal punishment and parents where ok with that. You also realize that some kids come from bad homes and that not all parents are teaching the kids morals. So while schools shouldn't indoctrinate, they can and they must punish bad behavior when it occurs.


"This kid was not sent to detention. Apparently, she broke no laws. She broke no stated school policy. She caused no disruption in the school."

---So are you saying that schools can suspend kids only in states that have cyber-bullying laws?


"Courts have rules that the schools may get involved when the speech disrupts or may disrupt the school. That didn't happen here. The school never cited any disruption concerns and therefore they can't discipline the kid on what she said."

---Maybe the school wanted to prevent a bad trend from becoming popular. A suspension is designed to scare the rest of the kids into complying.


"Yet the environment of a state school is mandated by the state."

---Not necesarily, the school board has power to, and if it's a charter school they even have more freedom. Americans don't like a big centralized government telling them what to do, other than No Child Left Behind, a school in Texas is not going to act the same as a school in California.


"No one is claiming they are. The schools must abide with the law of the land. They didn't in this case."

---What the bully did was horrible, a 2 day suspension is an appropriate punishment for the situation. Parents are too quick to sue, what are they thinking? My kid can do no wrong? When I was 10 I was suspended for a day. Why? I failed to show up to baseball practice which was mandatory. See? What I did wasn't legally wrong, and it certainly wasn't as bad as insulting someone on youtube, yet I got suspended.


"Wait. Aren't you the one who always says that people need tougher skin? I guess not."

---No, I do believe people need a tougher skin, but I also believe in punishment. I tolerate political incorrectness, bullying is an entirely different matter because it can lead to suicide or a school shooting.


"The punishment was overly harsh and contrary to the law."

---Come on! Some cynics would say that a two-day suspension is really a vacation for the kid, specially if his parents let him watch TV all day.

Anonymous said...

---If a frustrated student calls a teacher stupid, can he not send him to the principal's office? Yes he can.

Your point?

Schools have the power to discipline the kids,

Yes they do. They have the authority to discipline kids for actions that take place in school or impact the school. The school made no claim that the video in this case was made in school or impacted the school. The court ruled that the school had no jurisdiction in this case to discipline the other kid.

---So are you saying that schools can suspend kids only in states that have cyber-bullying laws?

I am saying exactly what I said.

---Maybe the school wanted to prevent a bad trend from becoming popular. A suspension is designed to scare the rest of the kids into complying.

Complying with what? The oppression of free speech?

---Not necesarily,

Yes, necessarily.

---What the bully did was horrible, a 2 day suspension is an appropriate punishment for the situation.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It doesn't mean that you are right to think that a school can suspend a kid for free speech that did not take place on the school grounds nor impact the school itself.

---Come on! Some cynics would say that a two-day suspension is really a vacation for the kid, specially if his parents let him watch TV all day.

Who cares what the cynics say? I would counter that the suspension, which will follow the kid the rest of his academic days, has a far greater affect given that the suspension was illegal to begin with.

Bobby said...

"Your point?"

---My point is that when a student attacks a teacher or another student verbally, punishment can be given. A 2 day suspension is not excesive, expulsion would be excesive.

"Yes they do. They have the authority to discipline kids for actions that take place in school or impact the school. The school made no claim that the video in this case was made in school or impacted the school. The court ruled that the school had no jurisdiction in this case to discipline the other kid."

---So tell me, if there's a youtube video of your star quaterback smoking dope, you can't suspend him from the team just because he didn't smoke dope in school? It doesn't matter where the video was made, the video affected the school, otherwise the administrators would not have find out.


"Complying with what? The oppression of free speech?"

---Complying with the anti-bullying principles of the school. Complying with good behavior. A private christian school would have reacted the same way.


"That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It doesn't mean that you are right to think that a school can suspend a kid for free speech that did not take place on the school grounds nor impact the school itself."

---If I'm the principal and a student comes crying to me because some jerk in my school made a youtube video, I will take action.

Free speech doesn't mean I have to tolerate bullying.


"Who cares what the cynics say? I would counter that the suspension, which will follow the kid the rest of his academic days, has a far greater affect given that the suspension was illegal to begin with."

---That's ridiculous, my sister used to do admissions for the MBA program at U. Mich. All she cared about was your GMAT score, GPA, SAT's, your extra-curricular activities, who you are and what can you give the school and a lot of other factors more important than a 2 day suspension.

Besides, bullies rarely care about academics.

Anonymous said...

---My point is that when a student attacks a teacher or another student verbally, punishment can be given. A 2 day suspension is not excesive, expulsion would be excesive.

Your point is not applicable to this situation then. The student wasn't attacked at school and the school never claimed the incident ever affected the school itself.

---So tell me, if there's a youtube video of your star quaterback smoking dope, you can't suspend him from the team just because he didn't smoke dope in school?

Suspension from the team is not the same as a suspension from school.

It doesn't matter where the video was made, the video affected the school, otherwise the administrators would not have find out.

Of course it matters. The only way the administration found out was that the kid complained. There is no evidence that the kid was made fun of, mocked, or anything like that on school grounds. In fact, the school's computers block YouTube where the video was hosted. The school was not a part of the problem and is therefore not a part of the solution.

---Complying with the anti-bullying principles of the school.

The "principles" that apply to on site behaviour? Those principles?

Complying with good behavior. A private christian school would have reacted the same way.

A Christian school may have reacted the same way. Unfortunately, the Christian school is not under the same first amendment constraints as the public school as the public school is a government entity.

---If I'm the principal and a student comes crying to me because some jerk in my school made a youtube video, I will take action.

If you are the principle in this case, you would be wrong. You'll end up costing the school district the lawyer's fees and a settlement fee for the kid whose right to free speech you violated. The fact of the matter is that the school doesn't have jurisdiction in this case.

Free speech doesn't mean I have to tolerate bullying.

There it is again. You believe in free speech only when you agree with the speech. Everything else you want to be censored or punished.

---That's ridiculous, my sister used to do admissions for the MBA program at U. Mich. All she cared about was your GMAT score, GPA, SAT's, your extra-curricular activities, who you are and what can you give the school and a lot of other factors more important than a 2 day suspension.

Please. Don't even try to say that a school won't take the disciplinary history of a student into account. All you are doing is making yourself look foolish.

Besides, bullies rarely care about academics.

So your point is what? That because in your limited experience and opinion "bullies" don't care about academics that means the state can trample their rights?

I just want to make sure that I understand your position here. Let's say that a group of 9th graders are talking at a pizza joint. The subject of another kid comes up and they say that the kid is stupid, a slut and spoiled.

Would you want the kids at the table suspended for that?

Bobby said...

"Your point is not applicable to this situation then. The student wasn't attacked at school and the school never claimed the incident ever affected the school itself."

---Why do you held students to different standards than those forced upon members of the army and workers in general?



"Suspension from the team is not the same as a suspension from school."

---Actually, it's a lot worse. A lot of athletes are hoping to get a sports scholarship, suspension from the team can prevent that, not to mention a lucrative career in sports since virtually all sports players in America play in college and then get recruited to the big leagues from there.


"Of course it matters. The only way the administration found out was that the kid complained. There is no evidence that the kid was made fun of, mocked, or anything like that on school grounds. "

---I'm sure a lot of people saw the video. Tell me, if my kid made a video against a black student on youtube, do you think the judge would have been so lenient?



"In fact, the school's computers block YouTube where the video was hosted. The school was not a part of the problem and is therefore not a part of the solution."

---Do you know that for a fact?



"A Christian school may have reacted the same way.."

---Public schools have punished kids for things they do outside school, that's all in part thanks to the internet, if the little bastards had a clue they would not be doing evil things on camera.

In fact, now there's a trend where kids will engage in vandalism and assault, film it and post it on youtube. Of course, in those cases it's the cops that get involved.


"If you are the principle in this case, you would be wrong."

---Only if the bully has rich Beverly Hills parents that care more about defending objectionable behavior than teaching their daughter a valuable lesson. Unlike her, I had good parents, my parents would have blamed me for my suspension, as they should. They would have said "how could you have done that" instead of "let's sue the school and protect our little bully."


"There it is again. You believe in free speech only when you agree with the speech. Everything else you want to be censored or punished.'

---That's not true, you always exagerate. Burning a cross is free speech, burning a cross on my property isn't free speech. Saying Bobby is an idiot is free speech, saying Bobby is a criminal is libel and defamation. In fact, the victim in this case could sue the bully for what she did, it isn't free speech to call someone a slut without proof, specially a private person.

Bobby said...

PART II


"Please. Don't even try to say that a school won't take the disciplinary history of a student into account. All you are doing is making yourself look foolish."

---If you're telling me that a two-day suspension is going to matter more than all the other accomplishments of a student, I'm not going to believe you.


"So your point is what? That because in your limited experience and opinion "bullies" don't care about academics that means the state can trample their rights?"

---What about the rights of victims? In some schools teachers look the other way when bullying occurs, in this one they don't. A youtube video is the equivalent of telling the world what you're doing. It's like doing porn and then wondering "oh my God, my employer just saw me and now he's firing me."


"I just want to make sure that I understand your position here. Let's say that a group of 9th graders are talking at a pizza joint. The subject of another kid comes up and they say that the kid is stupid, a slut and spoiled.
Would you want the kids at the table suspended for that?"

---No, because it's a PRIVATE conversation and the other kid has no way of finding out unless someone tells him, and even if he's informed, it doesn't matter since it's hearsay.

The problem now is that kids are taking it too far. Say Joe Student doesn't like a teacher so he posts on myspace "Mr. Clark is a f-g." You don't think that's a big deal? You don't think that can bring harassment and perhaps ruin the man's reputation in his community?

Calling a girl a slut on youtube can be very damaging, what if a future employer googles her name and finds that video?

But hey, long live the bullies, right?

Robert said...

The problem now is that kids are taking it too far. Say Joe Student doesn't like a teacher so he posts on myspace "Mr. Clark is a f-g." You don't think that's a big deal? You don't think that can bring harassment and perhaps ruin the man's reputation in his community?

Going by the elements of defamation in Stan's post:
1. false statement - depends on Mr. Clark's sexual orientation to determine if a false statement was made.
2. unprivileged publication - published on MySpace, the element is met.
3. standard of at least negligence - meets not only the standards for negligence, not only gross negligence, but all the way up to malice.
4. Damage to Mr. Clark - if his reputation is damaged, that should be easy to prove, and the element met.

To take another example:
If you send me a hate mail and I show it to my teacher, you don't think you're not going to get in trouble? That youtube video is out there for everyone to see, the parties did not bother to wear masks or distort their voices.

As the hate mail is sent only to the target and no one else, the element of "unprivileged publication" is not met, while it is met by publishing a YouTube video. Showing the hate mail to someone else will not cause the element of "unprivileged publication" to suddenly be met, though it may understandably generate a desire to retaliate against the sender. That is another matter.

Anonymous said...

---Why do you held students to different standards than those forced upon members of the army and workers in general?

Because the law holds them to different standards.

---Actually, it's a lot worse.

Actually it isn't. Suspension from a team is not part of the academic record. Suspension from school is.

---I'm sure a lot of people saw the video.

At the time the kid complained, the video had 90 hits on it. That is hardly "a lot."

---Do you know that for a fact?

It was reported in other news outlets and also the judge stated it in his opinion. It is a fact.

---Public schools have punished kids for things they do outside school,

But not for free speech that doesn't impact the school. That is what you are missing.

Unlike her, I had good parents, my parents would have blamed me for my suspension, as they should. They would have said "how could you have done that" instead of "let's sue the school and protect our little bully."

So this is where you get your liberal views, eh?

Your parents were willing to give up your rights to the state.

You see, my parents would have gone to the school to know why the suspension took place, then tell the school they had no right to reach into our home to say what we can or cannot say outside of the school. We would have availed ourselves of the legal remedies as well. At the same time, my parents, once informed of what I had done, would have punished me and demanded an apology to the girl.

Your parents would have run to the government for protection. My parents would have told the government to stick it. Your parents wanted your discipline and rearing to be done by the state. My parents recognized that child rearing is something the family does and the state should stay out of.

---That's not true, you always exagerate.

Of course it is true. You are against what happened because the speech in your mind was offensive. You want the government to get involved in what was a personnel matter. You want the government to punish someone for free speech.

---If you're telling me that a two-day suspension is going to matter more than all the other accomplishments of a student, I'm not going to believe you.

I never said that. I am saying that the conduct of a student is taken into consideration. A suspension on a record is seen and viewed by all admissions officers.

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont.

In some schools teachers look the other way when bullying occurs, in this one they don't.

The speech didn't occur on school property and wasn't impacting the school. Once the school determined that, by law they had to step back. They didn't. They decided that they would try and control the actions of students away from school and at all times. The judge rightfully said that wasn't within their jurisdiction.

---No, because it's a PRIVATE conversation and the other kid has no way of finding out unless someone tells him, and even if he's informed, it doesn't matter since it's hearsay.

The funny thing is that the girl in this was only reacting to what she heard - the very "hearsay" that you say doesn't matter.

Say Joe Student doesn't like a teacher so he posts on myspace "Mr. Clark is a f-g." You don't think that's a big deal? You don't think that can bring harassment and perhaps ruin the man's reputation in his community?

How nice that you think that being gay is somehow wrong. Your bigotry is showing again.

However, in your example, the teacher can bring a lawsuit against the student. That is not what happened in the case we are talking about. The girl complained to a counselor and the school suspended the other student. There was no hearing, no due process, no court of law. The school overstepped its jurisdiction. Also, in your hypothetical case, the video impacts the school and affects good order in the school. The school has jurisdiction at that point. The video of the comments about the girl didn't affect the school or the good order of the school. The school therefore had no jurisdiction.

It is clear that you are for the government reaching into the private lives, conversations and homes of students. That is a liberal point of view. You are advocating the "nanny state." I am against that.

Bobby said...

"Actually it isn't. Suspension from a team is not part of the academic record. Suspension from school is."

---How is a college going to recruit a quaterback if he's been suspended from a team? College recruiters go to high school football games, they look at the players and make their offers. If you can't play and your parents are poor, guess what? You ain't going to college.



"At the time the kid complained, the video had 90 hits on it. That is hardly "a lot.""

---Maybe it's not a lot for you, but it's plenty for the defamed party.


"So this is where you get your liberal views, eh?
Your parents were willing to give up your rights to the state."

----No, my parents simply knew the difference between right and wrong. Calling a classmate a slut on youtube is wrong even if its free speech, her parents should understand that and punish her accordingly.


"At the same time, my parents, once informed of what I had done, would have punished me and demanded an apology to the girl."

---That I agree with, yet in this case the parents of the girl did not do that, at least not to my knowledge.


"Your parents would have run to the government for protection."

---Bullshit, my parents don't trust the government. See? That's why you shouldn't make judgemetns about other people's parents.


"Your parents wanted your discipline and rearing to be done by the state. My parents recognized that child rearing is something the family does and the state should stay out of."

---See how off base you go? I have never been disciplined by the state, in fact, my parents were pretty strict, I didn't have a TV in my room and the computer was in the living room so my parents always knew what I was doing. And unlike the Columbine killers, my parents would have known if I had firearms in my room.


"Of course it is true. You are against what happened because the speech in your mind was offensive."

---In my mind? So if I call your girlfriend/wife a slut you're telling me it's not going to make you angry? You're telling me you're not gonna pick a fight with me? YOu're just gonna sit there and say "sorry babe, Bobby has a first amendment right to call you a slut, just ignore him."


"You want the government to get involved in what was a personnel matter. You want the government to punish someone for free speech."

---A school is not exactly the government even if it gets government money which in reality it doesn't, schools are financed with property taxes for the most part.

"I never said that. I am saying that the conduct of a student is taken into consideration. A suspension on a record is seen and viewed by all admissions officers."

---Then perhaps bullies will have to make sure not to leave a trail of evidence the next time they attack someone. I don't see the downside here.

Bobby said...

cont.


"The judge rightfully said that wasn't within their jurisdiction."

---Judges make mistakes, whatever.


"How nice that you think that being gay is somehow wrong. Your bigotry is showing again."

---Why do you make stuff up? Did I say being gay was wrong? I didn't. In fact, would it surprise you to hear I support ending don't ask don't tell? Besides, being called gay can be a career killer in some professions.


"There was no hearing, no due process, no court of law. The school overstepped its jurisdiction."

---You're telling me a school needs t oundergo due process before suspending somebody?


"Also, in your hypothetical case, the video impacts the school and affects good order in the school. The school has jurisdiction at that point. The video of the comments about the girl didn't affect the school or the good order of the school. The school therefore had no jurisdiction."

---Now you're saying teachers have more rights than students.


"It is clear that you are for the government reaching into the private lives, conversations and homes of students. That is a liberal point of view. You are advocating the "nanny state." I am against that."

---Nonsense, there's a big difference between the nany-state putting people in prison for what they say online and a school suspending a bad girl for two days.

Besides, you don't seem to understand that the moment you go on youtube you have given up your right to privacy with the communication you upload.

It's just like sexting, if you take a picture of your genitals and send it to your girlfriend, she can go ahead and send it to all her friends.

E-mails are the same way, specially at work. If you get angry with a co-worker and write him a nasty e-mail, he's free to show that e-mail to the entire office if he wants.

Thus, my point of view is quite conservative, if you don't want to get in trouble, don't do something you know it's wrong. If you do, then accept the punishment, beg for forgiveness, and move on.

Anonymous said...

---How is a college going to recruit a quaterback if he's been suspended from a team?

Sports are voluntary activities. I am sorry that you can't see the difference between mandated academics and an optional activity.

---Maybe it's not a lot for you, but it's plenty for the defamed party.

It is less than one half of one percent of the student body at the school. Under any measure, that is not a lot.

----No, my parents simply knew the difference between right and wrong.

Yet you admit that they wouldn't have stood up to the school and said "this isn't your jurisdiction." That isn't right.

---That I agree with, yet in this case the parents of the girl did not do that, at least not to my knowledge.

Even if the parents had done nothing, that does not give the school the right to suspend the student.

---Bullshit, my parents don't trust the government. See? That's why you shouldn't make judgemetns about other people's parents.

I'm sorry, I thought you said that if you were in this situation your parents would have accepted the school suspending you. Clearly that is trusting the government.

I have never been disciplined by the state, in fact, my parents were pretty strict,

Oh? You didn't write this: "When I was 10 I was suspended for a day."

---In my mind?

Yes. In your mind. Because you want the government to punish the girl for her speech. I find what happened offensive on a moral level but it did not rise to the level of the state getting involved.

---A school is not exactly the government even if it gets government money which in reality it doesn't, schools are financed with property taxes for the most part.

A school is recognized as a government entity.

---Then perhaps bullies will have to make sure not to leave a trail of evidence the next time they attack someone. I don't see the downside here.

Yeah. We have to make sure to squash the free speech of those we disagree with and who "offend" someone.

cont.

Anonymous said...

---Judges make mistakes, whatever.

Yes they do. Your point?

Did I say being gay was wrong? I didn't. In fact, would it surprise you to hear I support ending don't ask don't tell? Besides, being called gay can be a career killer in some professions.

If you can't see the bigotry in your writing, that is not my issue.

---You're telling me a school needs t oundergo due process before suspending somebody?

You made the comparison between a teacher and this case. Once again, I apologize that you can't see the difference in the two cases.

And yes, courts have ruled that students are entitled to a level of due process within a school.

---Now you're saying teachers have more rights than students.

I am saying that the two cases have differing impact on the school. In the case of the teacher, the impact is palatable. It affects school discipline and good order. In this case, the school never made the claim that the video impacted the school in any way. The Supreme Court has ruled that for a school to squash the speech of a student, it must impact the school or be likely to impact the school. That didn't happen in the case of the girl so the school was wrong to suspend the kid for free speech.

---Nonsense, there's a big difference between the nany-state putting people in prison for what they say online and a school suspending a bad girl for two days.

There is a difference in degree. There is no difference in the state policing free speech.

Thus, my point of view is quite conservative, if you don't want to get in trouble, don't do something you know it's wrong. If you do, then accept the punishment, beg for forgiveness, and move on.

Wow. Only a RINO would believe that the government regulating free speech and punishing someone for that speech is a conservative position.

Bobby said...

"Sports are voluntary activities. I am sorry that you can't see the difference between mandated academics and an optional activity."

---As much as I hate organized sports, I recognize their value when it comes to scholarships and lucrative careers. Lots of poor people from the getto have been able to become millionares and sometimes billionares thanks to sports. As cousin of mine could have become the next Jennifer Capriati and make like $3 a year thanks to endorsements, instead she became a dentist, and while she's succesful, she doesn't make anywhere near that amount.


"It is less than one half of one percent of the student body at the school. Under any measure, that is not a lot."

---One bully can terrorize an entire school, do not underestimate them.


"Yet you admit that they wouldn't have stood up to the school and said "this isn't your jurisdiction." That isn't right."

---If they agree with the punishment, why should they stand up to the school? If however the school teaches something against their values, they will take a stand.


"Even if the parents had done nothing, that does not give the school the right to suspend the student."

---What about detention? What about a letter of apology? You mean to tell me the school can do nothing against that student just because it didn't hapen on school property?



"I'm sorry, I thought you said that if you were in this situation your parents would have accepted the school suspending you. Clearly that is trusting the government."

---Oh come on, if a cop is making people slow down and you do, are you trusting the government? When you send a letter through the US Mail, are you not trusting the government? When the school forces the kids to watch the Al Gore movie, that's not right, punishing a bully is right.


"Oh? You didn't write this: "When I was 10 I was suspended for a day."

---Well, I violated the rules, I was supposed to go to baseball practice and instead I went home.


"Yes. In your mind. Because you want the government to punish the girl for her speech."

---What are you saying? That people can never be punished for their speech? I know you look at students and employees in a different way than I do, but I believe schools should train students to be good employees, capitalism depends upon that.

"Yeah. We have to make sure to squash the free speech of those we disagree with and who "offend" someone."

---Not true, I support controversial school clubs such as the Gay Straight Alliance, what I don't support is tolerating bullying, specially when it goes online.

"If you can't see the bigotry in your writing, that is not my issue."

---Hey, I've seen stories of people that have gotten fired for being gay, conservative, christian, etc. Don't call me a bigot just because I tell the truth.


"You made the comparison between a teacher and this case. Once again, I apologize that you can't see the difference in the two cases."

---I'm sorry, I thought we were all equal under the law, I didn't know teachers had more rights than students. In fact, teachers sometimes get fired for doing porn or for working at strip bars. Funny, students can't get in trouble for what they do on youtube, yet teachers can.

Bobby said...

"The Supreme Court has ruled that for a school to squash the speech of a student, it must impact the school or be likely to impact the school. That didn't happen in the case of the girl so the school was wrong to suspend the kid for free speech."

---Say the girl is an honor student and the youtube attacks cause her to get depressed and perform poorly in school, would not that affect the GPA of the school? Inspite of what the judge said, I think SCOTUS gave the schools plenty of leeway.


"Wow. Only a RINO would believe that the government regulating free speech and punishing someone for that speech is a conservative position."

---What the big deal? If the Klan wants to parade they have to get a permit and sometimes cities will deny those permits. It is often said that whoever owns the printing press owns the free speech. Youtube for example can choose to block videos.

I play an online game called eRepublik, I publish a newspaper and I got disciplined for writing an article called "God Damn the Queen" and saying horrible things about the brits. See? I got in trouble for being a bully even though I didn't mention anyone by name in that virtual world. In this case the girl didn't make a video against geeks or gays but another human being.

Besides, maybe the kids at that school signed an honor code, in which case bullying would violate that code and thus merit appropriate action.

Either way, your response to bullying outside of school seems to be "never mind." No wonder kids ends up shooting their classmates, the adults are too busy to hear the warning signs. And by the way, I'm not justifying school shootings, I'm just saying that when you see a tumor and don't remove it, it becomes a cancer.

Anonymous said...

---As much as I hate organized sports, I recognize their value when it comes to scholarships and lucrative careers.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that in public schools, sports are voluntary activities.

---One bully can terrorize an entire school, do not underestimate them.

Which didn't happen in this case. So far you have made two replies and neither of them are germane.

---If they agree with the punishment, why should they stand up to the school? If however the school teaches something against their values, they will take a stand.

Then as I said, your parents believe that they should give up your rights and their rights to the government.

---What about detention? What about a letter of apology? You mean to tell me the school can do nothing against that student just because it didn't hapen on school property?

Geez this gets tiresome. The school BY LAW cannot do anything that oppresses free speech unless that speech occurs on campus or affects the general order and discipline of the school. That didn't happen in this case.

---Oh come on, if a cop is making people slow down and you do, are you trusting the government? When you send a letter through the US Mail, are you not trusting the government? When the school forces the kids to watch the Al Gore movie, that's not right, punishing a bully is right.

What part of the "school does not have jurisdiction in this case" escapes you? What part of that can you not comprehend?

---Well, I violated the rules, I was supposed to go to baseball practice and instead I went home.

So the statement you made of "I have never been disciplined by the state," was a lie. Another lie in a long series of lies from you.

---What are you saying? That people can never be punished for their speech? I know you look at students and employees in a different way than I do, but I believe schools should train students to be good employees, capitalism depends upon that.

You look at schools and employees in a manner that is often contrary to the law. That is the problem. And I have never said that people cannot be punished for their speech. However, in this case the school did not have jurisdiction to punish the kid.

---Not true, I support controversial school clubs such as the Gay Straight Alliance, what I don't support is tolerating bullying, specially when it goes online.

Geez you are such a friggin' hypocrite. You support Perez Hilton. He is worse than what happened here and you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You don't want his bullying speech suppressed but are ready to tar and feather the kid in this case.

---Hey, I've seen stories of people that have gotten fired for being gay, conservative, christian, etc. Don't call me a bigot just because I tell the truth.

I call you a bigot because you are one.

---I'm sorry, I thought we were all equal under the law,

I am sorry that you can't see that the hypothetical case of the teacher and this case are not the same. People are equal under the law when the cases are the same or similar. They aren't here so your point, as always, is irrelevant.

cont.

Anonymous said...

---Say the girl is an honor student and the youtube attacks cause her to get depressed and perform poorly in school, would not that affect the GPA of the school? Inspite of what the judge said, I think SCOTUS gave the schools plenty of leeway.

The speech has to affect the discipline and general order of the school. Despite me repeating that over and over, you still can't understand it.

---What the big deal? If the Klan wants to parade they have to get a permit and sometimes cities will deny those permits.

Every time a city has turned down a permit on the basis of the speech of the Klan, the courts have spanked the town.

Youtube for example can choose to block videos.

YouTube is not the government.

Besides, maybe the kids at that school signed an honor code, in which case bullying would violate that code and thus merit appropriate action.

There you go again. You want the government reaching into the homes and private lives of people.

Either way, your response to bullying outside of school seems to be "never mind."

No, my response to the actions outside of the school are outside of the school.

And by the way, I'm not justifying school shotings,

You mean like the kids at Columbine that were bullied until they started shooting people? Kids like that?

I'm just saying that when you see a tumor and don't remove it, it becomes a cancer.

Free speech is a cancer? That is what happened here. The case involves free speech and you think free speech is a cancer?

Anonymous said...

---Not true, I support controversial school clubs such as the Gay Straight Alliance,

Oh by the way, the Gay Straight Alliance is a group that is against the free speech of others that oppose their ideas and beliefs.

Congratulations. Once again you show that you are, in fact, against free speech.

Bobby said...

"Geez you are such a friggin' hypocrite. You support Perez Hilton. He is worse than what happened here and you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You don't want his bullying speech suppressed but are ready to tar and feather the kid in this case."

---First of all, Perez makes fun of CELEBRITIES which under the law are public figures and thus not entitled to the same level of protection as other citizen. That's why anyone can call Obama an idiot and not go to jail for defamation or libel. I don't sympathize with celebrities that can defend themselves, at the end of the day Tiger Woods is still a billionare and nothing you say about him is gonna change that.


"I call you a bigot because you are one."

---That's how a liberal acts. In fact, a liberal friend of mine in RL is angry at me because I refer to black, brown, and asian people as "brownies." See? That's what liberals do, they see bigotry where there is none.

"You mean like the kids at Columbine that were bullied until they started shooting people? Kids like that?"

---Yes, kids like that.


"Free speech is a cancer? That is what happened here. The case involves free speech and you think free speech is a cancer?"

---No, the bully is a tumor that was becoming a cancer. It's just like having a nasty employee at work that's always in a bad mood and ruins people's day. Bad employees ruin organizations, bad students ruin school for the rest of us. Maybe you win the argument on the issue that whatever happens outside is not the school's business unless it affects directly the school. However, bullying needs to be taken seriously and not look upon as just free speech.


"Oh by the way, the Gay Straight Alliance is a group that is against the free speech of others that oppose their ideas and beliefs."

---The same can be said of the Black Student Union, what's your point? People should be able to hang out with their own kind, that's the whole point of groups and I support their right to assemble. If they oppose free speech I will stand against them.

Besides, you're a piece of work, if I say that it's bad to call a teacher gay, you call me a bigot and if I say I support the GSA, you say I'm against free speech. I can never win with you!

Anonymous said...

---First of all, Perez makes fun of CELEBRITIES which under the law are public figures and thus not entitled to the same level of protection as other citizen.

So you believe bullying is acceptable because the person is a celebrity.

I thought you were against bullying, but I can see that you really aren't.

I'll stand by my statement that you are a hypocrite.

---That's how a liberal acts.

I agree. Liberals are often bigots like you.

That's what liberals do, they see bigotry where there is none.

Uh huh. There is no bigotry in your statement at all. (sarcasm off) Thanks for proving my point.

---Yes, kids like that.

Well that would be interesting since in Columbine, Harris and Klebold were the bullies. They weren't reacting to being bullied. They WERE the bullies. They were also psychopathic terrorists, but don't let the facts get in the way of your assertions.

---No, the bully is a tumor that was becoming a cancer.

Really? A tumor? By exercising free speech? Oh the humanity!

---The same can be said of the Black Student Union, what's your point?

My point? It is simple. Despite all of your posturing to be for free speech, in reality you are against free speech and support groups that want to quash the rights of others.

if I say that it's bad to call a teacher gay,

Except you didn't say it was bad to call a teacher gay. You said that the teacher being gay would negatively affect his standing in the community. Obviously you believe that because of your bigotry and prejudice against gays.

you call me a bigot and if I say I support the GSA

Except I never said you were a bigot for supporting the GSA. You are a hypocrite for saying you believe in free speech and then supporting a group that actively tries to prevent free speech from others.

You're a bigot because of other things you have said and do, but not because you support the GSA.

Bobby said...

"So you believe bullying is acceptable because the person is a celebrity."

---The only time Perez was a bully was when he called will.i.am a f-gg-t. And he paid for that by getting punched in the face. Writing nasty crap about celebrities isn't bullying because 1. They're public figures. 2. It's expected that public figures will be criticized in the media.


"I'll stand by my statement that you are a hypocrite."

---If having sympathy for little girls being called "slut" vs. rich celebrities that are probably sluts makes me a hypocrite, so be it.


"Well that would be interesting since in Columbine, Harris and Klebold were the bullies. They weren't reacting to being bullied. They WERE the bullies. They were also psychopathic terrorists, but don't let the facts get in the way of your assertions."

---No they weren't, they needed a gun to be strong, when they came to school without guns everyone made fun of them, ridicule them, call them names, push them against lockers. A bully doesn't need weapons because they prey on the weak. I agree they were psychopathic terrorists, but it's easy to see what set them over the edge. In fact, many schools have taken anti-bullying measures to keep those tragedies rare.


"Really? A tumor? By exercising free speech? Oh the humanity!"

---Would you be defending free speech if the girl had made a video against blacks and use the n-word? I know how America works, some people get preferential treatment while others do not.


"My point? It is simple. Despite all of your posturing to be for free speech, in reality you are against free speech and support groups that want to quash the rights of others."

---Like the Black Student Union, the Chastity Club, the Hispanic Union, etc? All groups advocate something, as long as they don't force their views on others I'm ok with them.



"Except you didn't say it was bad to call a teacher gay. You said that the teacher being gay would negatively affect his standing in the community. Obviously you believe that because of your bigotry and prejudice against gays."

----You're probably against same-sex marriage yet you don't see me accusing of being prejudiced against gays. I'm very liberal when it comes to gays, I'm very well informed about that community thanks to advocate.com. That doesn't mean I deny that not everyone is as comfortable with gays as I am.


"Except I never said you were a bigot for supporting the GSA. You are a hypocrite for saying you believe in free speech and then supporting a group that actively tries to prevent free speech from others."

---Which group would that be? The GSA? That's ridiculous, they are a social organization that serves the needs of kids that may or may not be welcomed by other groups.

I also support the Boy Scouts and their discriminatory policies. I am troubled that they have lost federal and state money just because they don't welcome everyone.

Anonymous said...

---The only time Perez was a bully was when he called will.i.am a f-gg-t.

No, Hilton is a bully all the time and uses his website to do his bullying.

1. They're public figures. 2. It's expected that public figures will be criticized in the media.

So bullying doesn't matter if the person "expects" it or is a public figure?

Hypocrite.

---If having sympathy for little girls being called "slut" vs. rich celebrities...

Good. You're a hypocrite. Despite all of your faux posturing, it is not the bullying that you object to, it is the target.

---No they weren't, they needed a gun to be strong, .....

You're wrong. Let me say it again for you so hopefully it will sink in past the fog of ignorance in your head: YOU'RE WRONG.

"...but the record now shows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in diaries about picking on freshmen and 'fags.'"

"These are not ordinary kids who were bullied into retaliation," psychologist Peter Langman writes in his new book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. "These are not ordinary kids who played too many video games. These are not ordinary kids who just wanted to be famous. These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems."

source: http://tinyurl.com/djqmot

"Cullen concluded that the killers weren't part of the Trench Coat Mafia, that they weren't bullied by other students and that they didn't target popular jocks, African-Americans or any other group."

cont.

Anonymous said...

cont....



"I don't believe bullying caused Columbine," Jeff Kass, who covered the story for the Rocky Mountain News, told CNN. "My key reason for that is they never mentioned it in their diaries."

Source:http://tinyurl.com/cq3884


---I know how America works, some people get preferential treatment while others do not.

There ya go, Liberal. Attack American for your shortcomings.

---Like the Black Student Union, the Chastity Club, the Hispanic Union, etc? All groups advocate something, as long as they don't force their views on others I'm ok with them.

Apparently you cannot distinguish advocating a point of view, (which is fine) and actively suppressing the point of view of others. You support groups that want to oppress free speech. We keep coming back to this time and time again. You only support speech you agree with.

That doesn't mean I deny that not everyone is as comfortable with gays as I am.

From this thread and others, you aren't comfortable with them at all. You continually say that being gay is a negative.

---Which group would that be? The GSA? That's ridiculous, they are a social organization that serves the needs of kids that may or may not be welcomed by other groups.

The GSA has actively opposed any mention of opposing viewpoints on schools where they meet. Once again, you are wrong.

You support a group that is against the free exchange of ideas and expression.

Bobby said...

"No, Hilton is a bully all the time and uses his website to do his bullying."

---Do you consider this bullying?
http://perezhilton.com/2009-12-19-lil-waynes-tour-bus-detained-by-border-patrol


"So bullying doesn't matter if the person "expects" it or is a public figure?"

---Exactly, ask Bill O'reilly and Sarah Pallin, they deal with it constantly.


"You're wrong. Let me say it again for you so hopefully it will sink in past the fog of ignorance in your head: YOU'RE WRONG."

---There are two types of ways to use a gun. 1. Self-defense. 2. Attack. If those boys had been strong enough to beat the crap out of their bullies, they wouldn't have needed guns.


"...but the record now shows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in diaries about picking on freshmen and 'fags.'"

---Exactly, freshmen. It's the law of the jungle, sophmores and juniors prey on freshmen while seniors prey on everyone else. Besides, it's common for someone who's being picked on to pick on someone else.


"These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems."

---I don't deny that, in the ad industry I've dealt with people with serious psychological problems and I know I have to watch what I say in front of them constantly. If the school had paid more attention to them and their bullies maybe they would have gotten the help they needed and a tragedy would have been prevented. Today schools will look at students websites to see if anyone's planning a mass murder. So if Billy writes about blowing up the school, Billy might face charges.

"There ya go, Liberal. Attack American for your shortcomings."

---America does have shortcomings, Obama got elected president, this country is far from perfect and my criticism is patriotic because it seeks to make things better.


"Apparently you cannot distinguish advocating a point of view, (which is fine) and actively suppressing the point of view of others. You support groups that want to oppress free speech. We keep coming back to this time and time again. You only support speech you agree with. "

---So you're stereotyping all gay groups as censors, very nice. Tell me, if I make a donation to the Leukemia Foundation am I a censor just because those people ran anti-smoking commercials and support legislation that persecutes smokers?


"From this thread and others, you aren't comfortable with them at all. You continually say that being gay is a negative."

---So what? There are many negative things gays experience. If you're gay you can't get married, you have to stay in the closet if you're in the military, in some states you can't adopt children (Florida is one of them), some churches don't want you to serve as reverend or priest, the Boy Scouts don't want you, etc, etc, etc. Just because I focus on the negatives doesn't mean I hate them, it only means I'm realistic. Frankly, the only advantage of being gay is that it's easier to deal with the same-sex than the opposite sex and you'll never have to worry about getting anyone pregnant.


"The GSA has actively opposed any mention of opposing viewpoints on schools where they meet. Once again, you are wrong."

---Sure, they oppose the ex-gay movement just like the Blacks probably don't want David Duke lecturing the kids or the Klan distributing flyers on school grounds. Besides, all student groups are someone intolerant, when was the last time you saw a fat cheerleader?


"You support a group that is against the free exchange of ideas and expression.'

---That's what freedom is about, if you support free speech you have to support even people who oppose free speech when their rights are violated.

Anonymous said...

---Do you consider this bullying?

What do you think?

---Exactly, ask Bill O'reilly and Sarah Pallin, they deal with it constantly.

Hypocrite.

If those boys had been strong enough to beat the crap out of their bullies, they wouldn't have needed guns.

They weren't being bullied. What is wrong with you when you keep lying and making stuff up? Is that part of how your parents taught you "right from wrong?"

Besides, it's common for someone who's being picked on to pick on someone else.

Except they weren't being picked on. That is the point. You are wrong on this.

If the school had paid more attention to them and their bullies

They were not being bullied. Can you read?

---America does have shortcomings, Obama got elected president, this country is far from perfect and my criticism is patriotic because it seeks to make things better.

You and Michelle Obama are the epitome of patriotic. (sarcasm off)

---So you're stereotyping all gay groups as censors, very nice.

No, I am saying the group you support tries to shut down all opposing viewpoints and squash the free speech of others.

---So what?

So you are a bigot.

Besides, all student groups are someone intolerant, when was the last time you saw a fat cheerleader?

Last night when I officiated a basketball game. But that is beside the point. It is amazing to me that you feel that you accept and defend intolerance. More liberalism from you.

---That's what freedom is about, if you support free speech you have to support even people who oppose free speech when their rights are violated.

That is one of the dumbest statements ever made. In essence, you are saying that if one truly supports freedom, you have to support those who wish to take the freedom of others away.

So now we can add to your list of being a liberal, anti-military, bigoted, ignorant, prejudicial, and a hypocrite the fact that you are a complete moron.

Bobby said...

"What do you think?"

---I'm asking you, personally, I don't think it's bullying to report that a rapper was caugh with weed in Mexico, it isn't even gossip since Perez was simply quoting a newstory. In fact, the line between what Perez does and what the media does is pretty blury if you ask me.


"They weren't being bullied. What is wrong with you when you keep lying and making stuff up? Is that part of how your parents taught you "right from wrong?"

---You find one article that defends your point of view and suddenly I'm supposed to believe you? Come on.


"Except they weren't being picked on. That is the point. You are wrong on this."

---Yeah right, a bunch of weirdoes that come to school in trenchcoats are not going to get picked on? I WAS PICKED ON and I was pretty normal compared to the Columbine killers.


"You and Michelle Obama are the epitome of patriotic. (sarcasm off)"

---I am nothing like Michelle Obama, I didn't have a cushy $250,000 a year job doing nothing in some hospital. I didn't go to Harvard, I'm not a dirty lawyer, I used to work for a living making peanuts compared to those democratic fat cats.

"No, I am saying the group you support tries to shut down all opposing viewpoints and squash the free speech of others."

---Whatever, Christian groups, Jewish groups, hispanic groups, they all do the same. It's rare to find a group that doesn't censor.


"So you are a bigot."

---Whatever, all the people I love are called bigots - Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannitti, Ann Coulter... In this country if you speak your mind and are politically incorrect you get called a bigot. What else is new?


"Last night when I officiated a basketball game."

---The exception doesn't change the rule. The NBA has one famous short basketball player yet most basketball players are tall. Most cheerios are fit, athletic and lean because that's what the coaches want in their team.


"But that is beside the point. It is amazing to me that you feel that you accept and defend intolerance. More liberalism from you."

---I accept intolerance because the world is intolerant. Look at army recruitment websites and you'll see they have age limits. Want to be a model? Make sure you have the right weight and look, otherwise you ain't getting that job. I oppose affirmative action because in the real world nobody gets a break except for well-connected people. I oppose diversity because it celebrates backgrounds, race, gender, sexuality rather than natural talent, ability and human worth.


"That is one of the dumbest statements ever made. In essence, you are saying that if one truly supports freedom, you have to support those who wish to take the freedom of others away."

---The ACLU has defended nazis, a jewish lawyer fought for the nazis who wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire


"So now we can add to your list of being a liberal, anti-military, bigoted, ignorant, prejudicial, and a hypocrite the fact that you are a complete moron."

---You're wasting your time with all your name calling, it only reinforces my positions and makes me less likely to believe in anything you say. Right now you sound like those college professors that insult students when they disagree with them. I don't care who you are in real life, but in here I'm not under your command, you're not my basketball coach or my boss, so do not expect any deference from me.

Anonymous said...

it isn't even gossip since Perez was simply quoting a newstory.

But that's not all that there was to that link, is it?

---You find one article that defends your point of view and suddenly I'm supposed to believe you? Come on.

It wasn't one article. It wasn't just one source. It wasn't just one quoted source.

Once again, why do you lie when the facts go against you?

---I am nothing like Michelle Obama,

In attitude and beliefs you are.

It's rare to find a group that doesn't censor.

Moral relativism - just like your liberal friends.

---I accept intolerance because the world is intolerant.

You don't have the moral courage to stand up and say what is wrong? You first stated that you don't do it in real life and now you won't even do it on the net with your identity protected.

That is moral and ethical cowardice.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire

Wow. Nothing like quoting Voltaire to contradict the very point you are trying to make.

---You're wasting your time with all your name calling, it only reinforces my positions and makes me less likely to believe in anything you say.

It is not name calling, it is stating what you are.

Bobby said...

"But that's not all that there was to that link, is it?"

---Some commentary, some humor, some gossip. Is that bullying?

"Once again, why do you lie when the facts go against you?"

---I'm not lying, I'm simply not believing in your sources, it's called having an opinion. Perhaps I'm biased towards my point of view.


"In attitude and beliefs you are."

---Then I wouldn't have voted for McCain. The truth is I can't stand the Obamas, they are so fake and the media loves them so much. I like people with flaws, people who are authentic, who make mistakes, who speak in black and white terms instead of grey areas.



"Moral relativism - just like your liberal friends."

---My liberal friends don't tolerate intolerance, I do.


"You don't have the moral courage to stand up and say what is wrong? You first stated that you don't do it in real life and now you won't even do it on the net with your identity protected."

---I do it on the net, I stood up with the victim of bullying, I took a moral position in her favor. As for real life, it depends on the circumstances. After getting fired I've done a lot of thinking and concluded that not wanting to make waves and doing what the romans do hasn't worked for me.

"Wow. Nothing like quoting Voltaire to contradict the very point you are trying to make."

---Fine, maybe I was wrong about not standing up for the bully on youtube.

"It is not name calling, it is stating what you are."

----Moron is not name calling? Bigot is not name calling? Don't you realize that when you use those words you turn people against you even if you're right? You're a fan of the law, what do you think judges do to attorneys and defendants that are disrespectful? You may have the intelligence and verbal capacity to win arguments but you lack diplomacy.

Anonymous said...

---Some commentary, some humor, some gossip. Is that bullying?

You tell me. The commentary made by the kids was that the girl is a slut. I am sure they found that funny. It was gossip too.

---I'm not lying, I'm simply not believing in your sources, it's called having an opinion. Perhaps I'm biased towards my point of view.

I'm sorry, as usual, you can't read. You said that you weren't believing one article. There were in fact FOUR sources given. So you lied. Whether you believe those sources is your right. But for you to hold onto a disproven theory is ridiculous.

I like people with flaws, people who are authentic, who make mistakes, who speak in black and white terms instead of grey areas.

Right. You like people who hate America, hate the military, believe in intolerance, etc. Just like the Obamas and most liberals.

---My liberal friends don't tolerate intolerance, I do.

Of course they do. You have said they do in the past. Are you lying now or were you lying then?

---I do it on the net, I stood up with the victim of bullying, I took a moral position in her favor.

Yet you won't stand up to intolerance? Some stand.

----Moron is not name calling? Bigot is not name calling?

Not when it is an accurate description. And besides, are you saying that your "heros" such as Beck, OReilly and Hannity never use those terms?

You're a fan of the law, what do you think judges do to attorneys and defendants that are disrespectful?

When you become a judge, it will matter.

You may have the intelligence and verbal capacity to win arguments but you lack diplomacy.

Awww.... you got your feelings hurt?

Look, I would never resort to saying anything if you had the moral courage to admit when you make a mistake. The Columbine shootings is a great example. You are relying on your impressions and memories of what happened, rather than the detailed, factual investigations that took place. Trust me when I say that I was shocked at first when I read the articles, and then I went and read the books mentioned in the article. There is nothing that I can find out there that is even remotely current that says that kids were being bullied as you now assert. At one point in time, I thought the same as you did but that was because if the media reports I had read. Looking back and actually examining the evidence, it is clear those reports were wrong. I am always willing to examine different viewpoints that are supported with evidence. You won't. You get so entrenched in a position that the position becomes more important to you than the truth.

There are times when I lack diplomacy but that is something that we have reached after long discussions. Frankly, if I had to choose between a lack of diplomacy and a lack of integrity, I would choose to be lacking in diplomacy. You have chosen the opposite.

Bobby said...

"You tell me. The commentary made by the kids was that the girl is a slut. I am sure they found that funny. It was gossip too."

---The difference is that the "slut" isn't a public person. What do actors, musicians, journalists, politicians, directors, producers and celebrities have in common? They go on TV and magazines and tell their stories, because they do that the public has a right to respond. If Al Gore can ridicule SUV drivers than I have the right to gossip about Gore and find out what's wrong with him. The "slut" wasn't a public figure, so if she got herself an attorney and sued the bully for defamation, she could win. Public figures rarely can win unless they prove malicious intent, which is hard to prove.


"Right. You like people who hate America, hate the military, believe in intolerance, etc. Just like the Obamas and most liberals."

---That's bullshit, I don't hate the military, I hate Cindy Sheehan, I hate Code Pink, how dare do you say I hate the military? I'm sick and tired of your baseless accusations.


"Of course they do. You have said they do in the past. Are you lying now or were you lying then?"

---Liberals only tolerate intolerance from their side. If Lisa Lampenelli calls Sara Pallin a bitch, they tolerate that, but if Rush Limbaugh refers to Obama as a halfrican-American, they don't tolerate that.


"Yet you won't stand up to intolerance? Some stand."

---Why should I waste my time? Why should I write David Duke a letter and tell him that his views about jews are wrong? People have the right to think what they want, if they want to debate me, I'll talk to them, but I don't go around labelling people just because I disagree with them.


"Not when it is an accurate description. And besides, are you saying that your "heros" such as Beck, OReilly and Hannity never use those terms?"

---For the most part they don't, when I listen to them they often use intelligence and facts rather than name calling.

"Awww.... you got your feelings hurt?"

---Strangers can never hurt my feelings, only people I care about can do that.


"Look, I would never resort to saying anything if you had the moral courage to admit when you make a mistake."

---Sometimes I do admit mistakes, but I'd rather debate and not go on some kind of Catholic "mea culpa" charade. I grew in a world where it was always "my fault" so I've become very cynical about admiting error.


"Frankly, if I had to choose between a lack of diplomacy and a lack of integrity, I would choose to be lacking in diplomacy. You have chosen the opposite."

---Well, you ought to have both because a lack of diplomacy is not gonna win you friends or business no matter how much integrity you have.

Anonymous said...

Я это уже на другом сайте видел, но все равно спасибо.