Conquer Club

But don't you think this is a bit much?

This country sucks ass!

People like to cyber-bully or manipulate online because they are in the comfort of their own homes with a sense of security in their presumed non-commited nature. They do what they want, say what they want, click "close" and walk away back to their "real" lives.

It's alot like back in school when people get bullied. It was one thing to say: "Don't let it bug you and the bullies will stop." and another to actually see it work. Bullying began to earn official consequences.

If you ask the one being bullied, they are happy for the rule and hope it gets recognized. If you ask the bully, the rule "sucks" and "it's just a bit of fun" whereas for the one being bullied it's not fun at all. The bully doesn't want official law to be able to reprimand them for forcing their fun on others.

People didn't take bullying serious at first. "Boys will be boys" was the saying (still is in alot of places although they are more serious about what can be done). Stuffing others in lockers, knocking books out of the hands, physically pushing, so many practical jokes that the bully would consider fun but the target considered no fun at all and so what happened? People had to take a closer look because obviously there's no rule against people having fun, but if the fun is at the expense of another, it's suddenly a form of attack or harassement.

Rules were then put in place. What was acceptable, what wasn't. The "No hands" rule was put into place to deter physical contact by bullies onto their targets. "See it, report it" was a common double-line as well. Countering bullying was made a societal thing in the schools and communities.

I don't see a difference in online bullying. It's disgusting and most of these online bullies wouldn't last a day in prison without being scarred for life. Bullying... cyberbullying included is not a joke. The one writing it might find it funny. They might find it cool. The one on the recieving end may not. People should have better things to do online than cyber-bully. And if they don't, then I'd have no sympathy for them being convicted. It's not a bit much at all.

john9blue wrote:But don't you think this is a bit much?

The simply fact that you say you "hate flamers" demonstrates the strong emotions that online communication can evoke. With strong laws in-place, people will be protected from others who are crossing the line.

Selucid Empire wrote:It's not a bit much at all.

Let's for the moment suppose that everything you wrote in your post is correct (I do agree in principle with your post, actually, but I think it's worth noting that the line between bullying and teasing is a fine line obscured by a large gray area). The question then is not whether cyberbullying is a problem that needs to be addressed, but rather does this legislation address it appropriately or does it instead provide for an even greater level of bullying--the ability to silence political dissent, stifle legitimate anger, undermine the public discourse, etc. There seems to be significant potential for abuse with the vagueness of the bill's language.

..and I would guess that, much like any other crude bullying, most is done by kids who could not be jailed.

I'd bet a lot that if the girl had known this was not some cool guy mocking her, but someone's Mum, she'd've been a lot less distressed.

I'm sure a good look through existing laws would find that this was already a criminal act - defamation, maybe even fraud - I don't know US law well enough to be exact, but pretending to be someone else in order to deliberately cause emotional distress, repeatedly and maliciously, has to cross some line already without making a new cybercrime.

john9blue wrote:But don't you think this is a bit much?

I agree...yet this law really isn't aimed at flamers. As much as I detest flamers, there's a strong difference between that and cyber-bullying (cyber-bullying being the continued unrelenting harassment, rather than the one-or-two-time chewing out).

Of course, those are only my personal definitions, and so this law (as most laws are) is probably too vague in its' intent and could certainly be used for purposes OTHER than halting cyber-bullying (as someone else in the thread mentioned).

So what kind of rope did she use? Nylon, Polyester, Polypropylene, or Manila?

Another special aspect of this case has occurred to me.

Let's imagine (heavens knows that this could never happen) that two CCers get really annoyed with each other and start lobbing insults and FO&D at each other. It could happen, really it could.

These two people will be strangers, their only contact will be through the internet, the only thing they know about each other is what they've both posted.

If one of them turned out to be far younger and more vulnerable tahn the other had suspected, it would be a surprise and maybe even engender guilt in the older one who thought it was all give-and-take and the other could live with it.

In this case, the adult bully knew the victim, knew her age, and exactly how to needle and hurt her. That is a far more personal thing - the only cyber-aspect is that she didn't deliver the hate-mail to her letter-box but to her inbox.

StiffMittens wrote:

Selucid Empire wrote:It's not a bit much at all.

Let's for the moment suppose that everything you wrote in your post is correct (I do agree in principle with your post, actually, but I think it's worth noting that the line between bullying and teasing is a fine line obscured by a large gray area). The question then is not whether cyberbullying is a problem that needs to be addressed, but rather does this legislation address it appropriately or does it instead provide for an even greater level of bullying--the ability to silence political dissent, stifle legitimate anger, undermine the public discourse, etc. There seems to be significant potential for abuse with the vagueness of the bill's language.

The thin line between bullying and teasing? Here are a couple of scenarios. John is approx. 5'3-5'5 and 200 pounds.

- One day, John's class go on a skating trip. Never having skated before, John does up his skates leaving the room late because of trouble doing up his skates for the first time. He gets on the ice and awkwardly flaps his arms around trying to keep his balance. Finally, he manages to push into a few sloppy glides before deciding to stay right next to the wall. Some of the other boys in his class realize he's finally out and having trouble, and amidst some chuckles and laughing at his awkward stance, they decide to go try to help him. They skate towards him and try to guide him away from the wall giving him little shoves and such joking around laughing each time he falls to the ice. Each time he gets knocked down he has a hard time getting up and some of the guys reach their arms out and when he takes them, they quickly give his arm a tug causing him to glide more before crashing to the ice. This continues for several minutes before a teacher arrives asking what happened and the boys scatter with the last one to leave saying: "He's having trouble skating, we tried to help him."

Teasing or bullying?

----------------------------------

Joey is a very thin short individual. Often he's awkwardly grabbed, lifted, sometimes even tossed around by a group of people who find it funny that he can be lifted with a single arm. The more Joey asks them to stop or leave him alone, the more they do it because he can't do anything about it, finally they stop and leave. This continues time and again whenever the gang is looking for a few laughs. If Joey ever struggles too much against it and starts to flap his arms around or hit back, they'll begin to playfully hit him until he recoils and just asks them to leave him alone again. They proceed to tell him it's nothing serious and that it's funny.

Teasing or bullying?

-----------------------------------

The gang begin to play dodgeball. The class ends and while everyone comes out dressed, Carl is the last one out, as soon as he steps out, he's pelted by balls. He lifts his arms telling people to stop but they're having too much fun, they continue to huck the balls at him and look for balls that have already rolled away so that they can throw it again, the more he tells them to stop, the more they keep going and he sprints for the door.

Teasing or bullying?
--------------------------------------------

In all of these cases it's a case of perception. From the perception of each of the groups, it's all in fun. But for the 1 individual... it's thought of as bullying. It's recieved as bullying. So what draws the classification as a "tease" or an act of "bullying"? According to who's perception? More often than not, the victim's perception will be the one that's addressed. That boy being pushed around on the ice rink. The boy being tossed around and constantly lifted and wrestled by the group. The kid always being pelted by balls after class. From the perception of all the groups, it's a joke and in good fun. But if it's not recieved as a joke by the victim, it is addressed as an act of being bullied.

The gray area was about there. That fog of perception. That's why "Stop" came into play or "Hands off" or "No". Anytime the victim says to stop and they don't stop, it is considered bullying. Maybe they're just teasing, maybe they don't mean anything by it, but they are not adhering to the perception of the person who is being victimized by their actions. What's funny is even in teasing, people don't stop when they're asked to, they keep teasing. So when they are asked to stop doing something else, they don't take the "Stop" or "No" seriously.

StiffMittens wrote:Let's for the moment suppose that everything you wrote in your post is correct (I do agree in principle with your post, actually, but I think it's worth noting that the line between bullying and teasing is a fine line obscured by a large gray area). The question then is not whether cyberbullying is a problem that needs to be addressed, but rather does this legislation address it appropriately or does it instead provide for an even greater level of bullying--the ability to silence political dissent, stifle legitimate anger, undermine the public discourse, etc. There seems to be significant potential for abuse with the vagueness of the bill's language.

QFT.

I agree that "cyber-bullying" is worse than what we saw in Flame Wars, for instance. However, the language used in the bill is extremely vague, and it seems like they are using cyber-bullying as an excuse to push more shifty legislation onto us. This could go so far as to impede free speech in the Internet. The bill itself isn't "the end of the world" so to speak, but it's a sign of the worrying trend of the government's expansion.

The main question was not "bullying/teasing", but "is this an appropriate legal response".

jonesthecurl wrote:The main question was not "bullying/teasing", but "is this an appropriate legal response".

I think the wording is vague....but that isn't necessary a bad thing.

My understanding is that the application of the law will be decided in the courtroom when accused individuals will have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. That is when legal precedents will be made. So it is really the common people that will decide how to mold the law. Lawyers will argue it, and decisions will be made by the jury.

If this is the case, then I think this is an appropriate response. But my understanding of legal process may not be at the level of others here.

Selucid Empire wrote: The thin line between bullying and teasing?
...

In all of these cases it's a case of perception. From the perception of each of the groups, it's all in fun. But for the 1 individual... it's thought of as bullying. It's recieved as bullying. So what draws the classification as a "tease" or an act of "bullying"? According to who's perception? More often than not, the victim's perception will be the one that's addressed. That boy being pushed around on the ice rink. The boy being tossed around and constantly lifted and wrestled by the group. The kid always being pelted by balls after class. From the perception of all the groups, it's a joke and in good fun. But if it's not recieved as a joke by the victim, it is addressed as an act of being bullied.

The gray area was about there. That fog of perception. That's why "Stop" came into play or "Hands off" or "No". Anytime the victim says to stop and they don't stop, it is considered bullying. Maybe they're just teasing, maybe they don't mean anything by it, but they are not adhering to the perception of the person who is being victimized by their actions. What's funny is even in teasing, people don't stop when they're asked to, they keep teasing. So when they are asked to stop doing something else, they don't take the "Stop" or "No" seriously.

Perception and/or intent is not always easy to discern in the moment and it is often even harder to prove in court. People frequently misinterpret each other's actions and words and this what allows the bully to disguise himself or herself as merely a high-spirited prankster that didn't realize they were causing any harm. Each of the scenarios you describe could plausibly be retold with subtle shifts of perception in either direction to make them seem either more innocent or more sinister. Here's a different scenario:

Let's say I post an item for auction on eBay and you bid on and win the item. After you pay me for the item and I ship it out to you, you discover that I have carefully worded my description of the item to make it seem far more valuable than it is but without blatantly lying about it. You write to me and protest and ask for a refund. I politely decline and say that it is my stated policy that all sales are final. You write back and argue that the item was misrepresented in the description. I respond that I think your complaints are unfounded and politely request that you drop the matter. But this transaction was for a substantial sum of money and so you justifiably are reluctant to let the matter rest. You continue over the next several weeks to email me increasingly angry missives, eventually threatening me with lawsuits (which never come about because you happen to be short of funds--partially because I bilked you for a lot of money--and you also are working two jobs and can't take the time to bring this to the courts). Finally, you throw up your hands in despair, but not before leaving me very harshly worded negative feedback wishing me an untimely and violent end.

Now under this proposed legislation, might I have a potential case against you for cyber-bullying? Would I be justified in pursuing it?

King_Herpes wrote:So what kind of rope did she use? Nylon, Polyester, Polypropylene, or Manila?

Manila is an envelope, silly!

TheProwler wrote:

john9blue wrote:But don't you think this is a bit much?

The simply fact that you say you "hate flamers" demonstrates the strong emotions that online communication can evoke. With strong laws in-place, people will be protected from others who are crossing the line.

Winner of the 2009 Most Outrageously Ironic Post award.


Honibaz

TheProwler wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:The main question was not "bullying/teasing", but "is this an appropriate legal response".

I think the wording is vague....but that isn't necessary a bad thing.

My understanding is that the application of the law will be decided in the courtroom when accused individuals will have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. That is when legal precedents will be made. So it is really the common people that will decide how to mold the law. Lawyers will argue it, and decisions will be made by the jury.

If this is the case, then I think this is an appropriate response. But my understanding of legal process may not be at the level of others here.

True enough. For instance, our founding document, The Constitution, is also a very vague document.

StiffMittens wrote:

Selucid Empire wrote: The thin line between bullying and teasing?
...
In all of these cases it's a case of perception. From the perception of each of the groups, it's all in fun. But for the 1 individual... it's thought of as bullying. It's recieved as bullying. So what draws the classification as a "tease" or an act of "bullying"? According to who's perception? More often than not, the victim's perception will be the one that's addressed. That boy being pushed around on the ice rink. The boy being tossed around and constantly lifted and wrestled by the group. The kid always being pelted by balls after class. From the perception of all the groups, it's a joke and in good fun. But if it's not recieved as a joke by the victim, it is addressed as an act of being bullied.

Which is precisely as it should be, in my opinion. It should be treated the same way that sexual harassment is.

TheProwler wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:The main question was not "bullying/teasing", but "is this an appropriate legal response".

I think the wording is vague....but that isn't necessary a bad thing.

My understanding is that the application of the law will be decided in the courtroom when accused individuals will have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. That is when legal precedents will be made. So it is really the common people that will decide how to mold the law. Lawyers will argue it, and decisions will be made by the jury.

If this is the case, then I think this is an appropriate response. But my understanding of legal process may not be at the level of others here.

But just because one legal precedent is made doesn't mean that another precedent can never follow. I mean, even if the first few times this law gets tested in the courts it turns out to be applied reasonably, that doesn't mean that the law can never be applied in a different manner.

Woodruff wrote:Which is precisely as it should be, in my opinion. It should be treated the same way that sexual harassment is.

However, I would point out that sexual harassment seems to have a more well defined boundary. That is to say that, in my opinion, it would be easier to determine when "conduct of a sexual nature" creates "a hostile or offensive work environment" than it would be to determine if an individual transmits communication, with "the intent to cause substantial emotional distress." The former seems to have more concrete parameters by which a jury can judge the actions of the accused. Whereas the latter seems so vague and difficult to quantify.

The original example cited, i.e. the adult woman bullying a child, is well covered by already existing laws, and the woman resposible, after suffering criminal charges, will also lose her shorts in the inevitable civil suit. This new law however, is indicative of how whining pussies hold sway in this country.

Ever wonder why allergies to various substances increase year to year? It's because we baby ourselves by making our food, water and general environment more and more "pure" and sterile - we are literally destroying our immune systems by destroying the enemies thereof.

People need to fight to survive. If they don't, they become weak and complacent. I had 3 younger brothers that i protected while growing up, but that protection was from older, bigger kids - anyone their own age and size had to be dealt with by them, and i raised my son the same way. Everyone has to go through bullying of some sort or another - it's part of growing up. Those too weak to deal with that and other adversities need to be withdrawn from the gene pool before they pollute it even further.


Honibaz

I have nothing to add to this thread, except that Seleukid Empire spelt their name wrong (you're missing the other 'e', and you can change 'c' to 'k', which I did)

b.k. barunt wrote:

TheProwler wrote:

john9blue wrote:But don't you think this is a bit much?

The simply fact that you say you "hate flamers" demonstrates the strong emotions that online communication can evoke. With strong laws in-place, people will be protected from others who are crossing the line.

Winner of the 2009 Most Outrageously Ironic Post award.

I'm glad you didn't miss that.

Although, in my defense, when I noticed someone getting really upset, I'd PM them and let them know I was just joking around.

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:The main question was not "bullying/teasing", but "is this an appropriate legal response".

I think the wording is vague....but that isn't necessary a bad thing.

My understanding is that the application of the law will be decided in the courtroom when accused individuals will have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. That is when legal precedents will be made. So it is really the common people that will decide how to mold the law. Lawyers will argue it, and decisions will be made by the jury.

If this is the case, then I think this is an appropriate response. But my understanding of legal process may not be at the level of others here.

But just because one legal precedent is made doesn't mean that another precedent can never follow. I mean, even if the first few times this law gets tested in the courts it turns out to be applied reasonably, that doesn't mean that the law can never be applied in a different manner.

Yes, and then we have to rely on a decent defense lawyer to present a good argument and a reasonable jury to set another precedent. That's the beauty of being able to choose a jury as the final decision-maker.

StiffMittens wrote:

Selucid Empire wrote: The thin line between bullying and teasing?
...

In all of these cases it's a case of perception. From the perception of each of the groups, it's all in fun. But for the 1 individual... it's thought of as bullying. It's recieved as bullying. So what draws the classification as a "tease" or an act of "bullying"? According to who's perception? More often than not, the victim's perception will be the one that's addressed. That boy being pushed around on the ice rink. The boy being tossed around and constantly lifted and wrestled by the group. The kid always being pelted by balls after class. From the perception of all the groups, it's a joke and in good fun. But if it's not recieved as a joke by the victim, it is addressed as an act of being bullied.

The gray area was about there. That fog of perception. That's why "Stop" came into play or "Hands off" or "No". Anytime the victim says to stop and they don't stop, it is considered bullying. Maybe they're just teasing, maybe they don't mean anything by it, but they are not adhering to the perception of the person who is being victimized by their actions. What's funny is even in teasing, people don't stop when they're asked to, they keep teasing. So when they are asked to stop doing something else, they don't take the "Stop" or "No" seriously.

Perception and/or intent is not always easy to discern in the moment and it is often even harder to prove in court. People frequently misinterpret each other's actions and words and this what allows the bully to disguise himself or herself as merely a high-spirited prankster that didn't realize they were causing any harm. Each of the scenarios you describe could plausibly be retold with subtle shifts of perception in either direction to make them seem either more innocent or more sinister. Here's a different scenario:

Let's say I post an item for auction on eBay and you bid on and win the item. After you pay me for the item and I ship it out to you, you discover that I have carefully worded my description of the item to make it seem far more valuable than it is but without blatantly lying about it. You write to me and protest and ask for a refund. I politely decline and say that it is my stated policy that all sales are final. You write back and argue that the item was misrepresented in the description. I respond that I think your complaints are unfounded and politely request that you drop the matter. But this transaction was for a substantial sum of money and so you justifiably are reluctant to let the matter rest. You continue over the next several weeks to email me increasingly angry missives, eventually threatening me with lawsuits (which never come about because you happen to be short of funds--partially because I bilked you for a lot of money--and you also are working two jobs and can't take the time to bring this to the courts). Finally, you throw up your hands in despair, but not before leaving me very harshly worded negative feedback wishing me an untimely and violent end.

Now under this proposed legislation, might I have a potential case against you for cyber-bullying? Would I be justified in pursuing it?

I personally refuse to purchase things online for this very reason. If infact you did not outright lie and I cannot prove that you've lied, I would have to take a few moments, compose myself and realize that I did not perform the required due-diligence on what I was going to purchase. Anything for a set ammount of money as valuable as you've described would only amplify my due-diligence on the purchase.

Hence yes. If you managed to word things so artistically that it was not able to be proven to be a lie, I would have to understand that I got suckered and and if I retaliated, I would be opening myself to being held accountable for it because what I would type back would be able to be proven.

Those harsh words I would say while throwing my hands up in despair could be proven. I think of it as a retaliatory penalty in a hockey game. When I started watching hockey games with the boyfriend I was interested at the penalties I saw called. Very often someone does a check or a hit that is not considered illegal but it annoys the other team so much that they respond with an exaggerated hit of their own. That hit however is blatantly illegal to prove a point and they are called.

Sometimes one blatant illegal activity is performed and missed by the ref, watching it from the couch at the house we can see the replays and hear the announcers but the call can't be amended 4-5 minutes later. What's done is done. This is why coaches tell their teams to practice discipline. Hit good... hit hard, but hit clean. Sometimes your opponent will get away with a cheap hit or a dirty trick, but coaches tell their players not to take a penalty retaliating.

If I were incapable of building a case... I would have to let it go and be absolutely sure I would do nothing that could be considered a retaliatory strike based on evidence. So no... I would not send you a strongly worded harassing message. I would have to cut my losses because you could very well claim a follow-up charge on a deal that was done by terms that we both accepted in my purchase.