-
Small Steps Toward a Better Tax Code
November 17, 2011 | 11 comments
-
The Only Thing Worse Than Obamacare is Obamacare Without A Mandate
November 16, 2011 | 9 comments
-
Obama “Can’t Wait” to Target Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Health Entitlements
November 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
Supercommittee Would Rather Change the Rules Than Make Budget Cuts
November 14, 2011 | 7 comments
-
As Supercommittee Faces Failure, Both Parties Have to Deal With Defense Cuts
November 11, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Bullying is an everpresent issue that faces American kids. But recently, a spate of anti-bullying fever has swept through the nation’s legislators. In New Jersey, Missouri, Michigan, California and other states, legislatures are enacting harsh anti-bullying laws in hopes of curbing the effect on public schoolkids.
Now, the D.C. city council is considering a very restrictive law that would create “anti-bullying zones” in the city’s public schools. Measures like this are often described as “well-intentioned” and paired with a sympathetic anecdote about how someone has been profoundly affected by bullying. As conservatives, though, we know that good intentions don’t make good law. Wendy Kaminer recently laid out the First Amendment issues with many of these new laws, and D.C.’s in particular.
The flagrant abuses of this bill threaten civil society much more than the abuse it apparently intends to prevent — bullying (anti-gay bullying, in particular). In addition to policing the everyday speech of anyone who frequents a public park or library, the bill creates a system of informants within specific agencies.
[T]he unconstitutionality of the D.C. bill is clear. While in K through 12 public schools, administrators enjoy considerable power to restrict “disruptive” student speech, administrators in public colleges and universities are obliged to respect First Amendment rights. So are elected officials, who have no power to prohibit citizens from allegedly demeaning, insulting, or otherwise offending each other.
Bullying is often disruptive to a youth, and no one wants to see their children subjected to this. However, the pendulum has clearly swung too far in the other direction - not all bullying is preventable, and it’s not worth the infringements of freedom of speech.
View all comments (2) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Kevin Glass
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/08/the-dc-councils-unconstitution
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Rogue Elephant| 11.8.11 @ 2:35PM
Such a law might also be void for vagueness. What standard will they apply to determine what is demeaning, insulting, or offensive? A subjective standard based on the sensibilities of the listener? An objective standard based on a reasonable person? Ridiculous.
Jim Hlavac | 11.8.11 @ 6:35PM
You know, having been the recipient of bullying for being a gay kid, back in the early 1970s, in Junior High, I took care of it in my own way -- with two well planned out events, I simply pummeled the two biggest bullies in a public way (the looks on their faces, and all around, was, shall we say, "priceless.") Then I was the um, "bashing fag" and high school was rather pleasant. Not all gay men are a pushy as me, of course.
On the other hand, sure, this law goes to far in restricting "speech." But the gays-being-bullied issue is not "speech" -- it is assault. It is simply beating the hell out of kid for being gay, or being perceived as gay. Many parents of these kids have complained about it, schools have simply rebuffed them and told them "tough."
Now, 44 states have "hazing" laws (the other six use their assault and battery laws) to prevent violence against kids of any age (the hazing of course being related to fraternities in high school or college.) So it strikes me that there are already some laws to be used. I have heard no complaints about hazing laws. We don't need more laws (and I'm a big advocate of a lot less law, I assure you.)
However, the issue here is that gay/perceived gay kids are simply being beaten up, even driven to suicide (OK, so we're sensitive, that's what gayness is, a certain feminine sensitivity, what can I say? I know you don't like it; reality is tough.) That's either hazing, in a sense, or assault and battery -- both already illegal.
Now, some of you will ask, how could these kids be "gay"? -- for many here are fully convinced that gayness lies in the "sex act" and not within the person -- while straight kids are of course accepted as straight with or without sex whatsoever, (preferably without at tender ages; weirdly, as an aside, it's probably gays who leave high school virgins in our oversexed society.) Puppy love and all that, right?
Well, and so the thing for this magazine and its bright folks to figure out - what sort of laws and/or attitude changes could be brought about to stop the beating the living daylights out of gay kids instead of just lamenting overreaching laws? Why do we, alone among all citizens, "deserve" this "special right" to simply be pulverized for the (alleged) "good" of everyone else? Are you heteros that unsure of themselves? Apparently. Rick Santorum, a man the same age as I, whose only "accomplishment" "more" than mine in life has been to be a Senator -- is quite sure I'm a threat to the nation and wants me arrested -- what a bit of "bullying" that is, eh?
However, this is not what a good number of opponents of anti-bullying statutes are concerned about -- NOM, FRC, AFA, on and on through the NO GAYS! constellation -- they are concerned they don't keep the "right" to keep beating the hell out of gay folks.
And well, then, I would suggest, why don't you all come up with a better worded law -- one that gays would like and you too, and who knows, you'd wind up with more gay conservatives like I am. But, still, stop the pulverizing of gay kids in schools, it is unholy, unChristian and unAmerican. Thank you.