i had originally set out to blog about the topic of the article above, bullying (or cyberbullying, but i think its retarded to make a distinction. focusing on "cyberbullying" is just as stupid as focusing on "hate crime." it is bullying or crime, period) but after reading several related articles, i find myself incredibly irritated by a completely unrelated issue, namely ignorance of the constitution and the rights it guarantees. some excerpts:
...said it will be difficult to draft a cyberbullying law that doesn't infringe on free-speech rights...seems even state lawmakers are ignorant in this area. see, high school students (all but a fraction of a percentage who either failed a grade or started late) have no constitutional right to free speech. they are MINORS. thats not just a quaint, old-fashioned word for "kids" folks... its a legal term describing a person who has not yet reached the age of majority... from the "Constitutional Rights" area of constitution.org:
...In Arkansas, the state Senate this month passed a bill calling on school districts to set up policies to address cyberbullying only after it was amended to settle concerns about students' free-speech rights...
...In New York, two high school boys were accused of operating an Internet site that listed girls' "sexual secrets." Prosecutors decided not to charge the boys because of free-speech concerns...
Disabilities of minority: [1]and also from the "Students Rights" section of usconstitution.net:
Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.
Violations of Free Speecheven worse than this ridiculous concern over the rights of minor citizens is the utter LACK of concern for the rights of those minor citizens who are the target of the attacks. why the FUCK are we more concerned with protecting the rights of the people causing the problems than we are for the rights of their victims?? it is EXACTLY this kind of fucked-up misplaced concern on the part of authority that leads these kids to shoot their tormentors (and their protectors) in the fucking face. and i say, more power to them. if we're going to turn a blind eye to the behavior that drove them to it, we should likewise look the other way when they resolve the problem through the only avenue left to them.
The Supreme Court said in Tinker that "[If] conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." This is the hinge upon which many cases turn when a school violates a student's free speech protections.
In Bethel School v Fraser (478 US 675 [1986]), the Court ruled that a school was not violating a students rights when it suspended a student for the use of crude language in a speech to a school assembly. Said the Court: "It does not follow ... that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school... The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board."
this entire country has gone completely off the fucking rails.