Michigan Senate passes anti-bullying law that allows bullying....

...For any "religious or moral basis."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDK-ja8PLgg

I suppose I'm posting this just so any Michigan-based Tropers might make calls against it, I suppose.

So in theory it wouldn't prevent gay bashing on the grounds that many homophobic people at least claim religious or moral grounds for being so? Would that mean bullying people for being atheist, or any non-Christian would also be allowed? That's bullshit.

Yes.

Genius. An anti-bullying rule with a loophole so large even a five year old can figure out how to drive a bus through it.

edited 3rd Nov '11 9:56:53 AM by Midgetsnowman

The skeptic in me looked into this.

"This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian"

What's the fucking problem again?

Simple.

I can beat you up, call you a stupid faggot who's going to burn in hell, then claim I was simply telling him what God says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

"A Statement" sounds like free speech but in the context of a bill about bullying, I think it's allowing bullying.

"You're a fag that's going to burn in hell" is a sincerely held religious belief.

That's the problem.

The problem is the privilege.

Edit: Wow. Super Ninja'd by M Snowman.

edited 3rd Nov '11 10:03:28 AM by Karmakin

It only covers statements. Of any religious or moral belief.

So, while it does cover somebody saying "you are going to burn in hell", it does not cover touching, harassing, or threatening a person. It also covers any religion or moral belief.

Again. What is the problem?

The particular language that she objects to says, "This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian." Link

So if you sincerely believe that certain people should be harassed, bullied or worse, then it's perfectly OK to do so. So the law gives explicit protection to those who bully based on their sincerely held religious or moral convictions. Great.

edited 3rd Nov '11 10:05:44 AM by Lawyerdude

On the plus side, theoretically it also allows normal folks to marginalize and harass fundies. You could theoretically bash the local gay-basher or bible-thumper back.

Don't take me wrong, this sucks balls, but it at least makes room for anti-bullying direct action.

Unfortunately Savage, that's not the way it works in the real world. It's why religious privilege is just that. Privilege. It doesn't apply across the board.

So, while it does cover somebody saying "you are going to burn in hell", it does not cover touching, harassing, or threatening a person.

Yeah, I think we have a vastly different conception of "harassment" here and what'll come from it..

It also covers any religion or moral belief.

So what?

I should also add that outside of the religious privilege issues, what REALLY concerns me reading about this, is leaving out reporting requirements. A lot of social bullying is actually community-wide issues, and as such, reporting bullying complaints to external 3rd party investigators, I think can and would save lives.

So while, lets say a christian fundamentalist, can say "gays are going to burn in hell", a atheist can go around saying "the religious spend their entire lives dedicated to a fairy tale", a vegetarian can go around saying "people who eat meat are sick individual for eating meat", a non sequitur can say "banana-duck phones", etc.

Basically I am kinda bothered by the assumption that this is designed to allow bullying. More likely it was thrown in an attempt to stop people from being rule harassed into staying quite about their beliefs.

Scale man scale!

Of the statements you said, one doesn't belong.

The theist says, You are evil for not believing! The militant vegan (It's NEVER a vegetarian btw.) says You are evil for eating meat! The atheist says, I think you are wrong for believing this.

Two are direct statements on the value of an individual, while the third doesn't nearly rise to that level.

Constitutional Free Speech law covers that. It doesn't need to be reinforced by state law. Things that reiterate established Federal law tend to exceed them.

And, again, the context of the bill matters. Yes someone can call religious beliefs bullying but that's covered by free speech law. Which leaves the interpretation of this to be broader.

edited 3rd Nov '11 10:28:47 AM by occono

[[They probably added it to avoid these situations. http://engagefamilyminute.com/2011/09/high-school-freshman-accused-of-%E2%80%9Cbullying%E2%80%9D-for-sharing-view-on-homosexuality/]]

Not that the above situation is above scrutiny as well, but it's what they probably fear.

I am kinda against the anti bullying laws myself so I am going to admit a little bias.

More stupidity from my state? Shocking.

These motherfuckers took my scholarship, so this level of stupidity and malice doesn't surprise me.

I became agnostic because of this bullshit.

Whitner just became my favorite woman on the planet. This is god damn disgusting. As a victim of bullying, I hope every republican who caused this god damn garbage gets hit by a bus.

edited 3rd Nov '11 10:43:49 AM by Thorn14

OK, I'm not going to read a story by the "Family Policy Council" and "Liberty Counsel".

Googling it, I found, well, mostly gay sites coverage, which I admit has it own potential for bias:

http://www.dallasvoice.com/lgbt-groups-fort-worth-teacher-suspended-student-victim-anti-gay-harassment-1090417.html

http://www.queerty.com/homophobes-say-the-darndest-things-where-hate-speech-meets-free-speech-20110922/3/

But also one from Warren Thockmorton: http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/27/is-there-more-to-the-dakota-ary-story-than-has-been-reported/

But I still think this has far potential for abuse the other way around. Dakota Ary wasn't punished in the end. Free speech law vindicated him. Which means there didn't need to be a law passed.

So I pretty much stand that this intends to go far beyond that.

I am kinda against the anti bullying laws myself so I am going to admit a little bias.

Bullying is not free speech. We can argue this law's exception's merits I suppose, but if you're saying you're against efforts to outlaw "Bullying" I'm not talking with you.

edited 3rd Nov '11 10:50:11 AM by occono

Anyone who says bullying is free speech has never been the victim of bullying.

Sometimes, I sincerely hate my country and everyone's willingness to bend over backwards for religious zealots. "Bullying is not okay, unless you're doing God's work!"

Yeah. The problem is that with bullying you basically have speech crossing over into threats. That's when you draw the line. The big problem is that a lot of people don't see "hell" as the threat that it is.

Threats can be more than threats of physical violence, they can also be threats about emotional or social violence, and in fact that's what more commonly bullying actually is.

Here's the thing. I'm not saying that we throw out common sense, or that every thing someone says might be bullying and should be banned. What I am saying is that we shouldn't encourage these people via enshrining their desired privilege into law.

edited 3rd Nov '11 10:54:38 AM by Karmakin

Here's why this law is bullshit.

Imagine you're walking to school one day. A guy from your grade comes up to you and says "You're going to hell because you're a gay, and I'm going to tell everyone about it."

He then proceeds, for months on end, to ruin your life through telling everyone you know that you're homosexual, and thus going to burn in hell, and that if they associate with you, they will too. He calls you names every day, and soon the other people in your grade do as well. It gets so bad that people start calling you those same names when you aren't even in school. You've become the laughing stock of not only the school, but the entire town, and you're treated like dirt everywhere you go.

And its all legal because that guy is "following his religious beliefs."

Great, just when I thought this state legislature could not possibly get more full-on retarded...