The right to bully (2 Viewers)

[ehtefaz.hedayet]

I hope you don't lose your ipod, redmayne

loool

 

[khorne]

But it is...If you let every insult, every joke and every comment hurt you, or get to you in some way, you are obviously too sensitive for this world.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Emotional bullying is not not some superfluous form of bullying...

Bullying can lead to mental illness, says study - Education News, Education - The Independent

It causes serious problems. Not so subjective actually, if the person is feeling hurt...

Come on, everyone here knows how a school works, even if she only sees the thing website the first time, she's gonna be constantly reminded of it, in nice and nasty ways at school.

Well I prefer to err on the side of protecting the victim, rather than the bully.

I mean seriously..."the right to bully", fuck off. What about the right not to be bullied.

Im not saying its not serious, Im saying that this is not a solution. How about you answer the questions I posed, cause guess what, we don't have unlimited time and resources to spend dealing with cyber bullying, and what actually crosses the line is extremely subjective and difficult to determine.

Perhaps its not a good idea to teach children to run to the authorities every time someone upsets them. The internet is a perfect example of where people you don't like have an off button, and its a good lesson that sometimes people will be difficult and often the best thing to do is simply not to associate with them.

 

[incentivation]

Absolute freedom of speech is a touch too far. Sure, words alone are generally not considered by the criminal law as worthy of sanction unless they place the person subjected to the words in fear or similar. This is a fair position.

As odd as it may be, I agree that on the internet there are mechanisms which can prevent the bully from having contact with the bullied. These mechanisms are generally sufficient for resolving the issue.

However, as a society we would be entering dangerous territory if we transferred the responsibility onto the slandered as oppose to the slanderer. Why should an individual who is subjected to slanderous or defamatory comment that is completely unfounded, be required to make an effort to correct the falsehood? In many circumstances their professional or personal credibility, and indeed their livelihood, is reliant upon how they are perceived by others.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

But it is...If you let every insult, every joke and every comment hurt you, or get to you in some way, you are obviously too sensitive for this world.

Again I agree, often it is just muckin around not even serious anyway (though I admit not always). It's different when it becomes physical, however when it's just petty name calling, you can say shit back too, or just not let it bother you.

 

[loquasagacious]

Absolute freedom of speech is a touch too far. Sure, words alone are generally not considered by the criminal law as worthy of sanction unless they place the person subjected to the words in fear or similar. This is a fair position.

As odd as it may be, I agree that on the internet there are mechanisms which can prevent the bully from having contact with the bullied. These mechanisms are generally sufficient for resolving the issue.

However, as a society we would be entering dangerous territory if we transferred the responsibility onto the slandered as oppose to the slanderer. Why should an individual who is subjected to slanderous or defamatory comment that is completely unfounded, be required to make an effort to correct the falsehood? In many circumstances their professional or personal credibility, and indeed their livelihood, is reliant upon how they are perceived by others.

In making the original statement the onus is on the slanderer to prove their accusation. For example if I called someone fat, ugly or stupid then I would need to substantiate that claim when I made it. "My god that fat bastard weighs 85kgs and he's only 11", etc etc.

Concepts of defammation/libel create the impression that everything which is published is true and must be disproved by the slandered person. Remove the concepts entirely and the discourse is seen for what it is. And it is not always true.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

But it is...If you let every insult, every joke and every comment hurt you, or get to you in some way, you are obviously too sensitive for this world.

Alright, but such insults might be perceived by some as provocation, which could lead to something worse later on (eg. fights.)

 

[khorne]

Yes, then it counts as assault or aggravated assault, a entirely new matter.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

there are things more important than free speech. bullying causes considerable harm to victims, and the perpetrators of bullying need to be punished. the suspension was warranted.

 

[khorne]

In all honesty, the death of something is required for the greater good. Soldiers die in wars to protect, and the same occurs here, some people are bullied, but free speech should be protected.

Of course, policies in schools for bullying are required, but on the net, unless you can prove slander or defamation (but there are little to no damages), then you have no case. Ignore it.

 

[ehtefaz.hedayet]

bully is fully bad

 

[David Spade]

Yes but unlike say in a classroom, where the child does not have much of a chance to remove themselves from the bullying, online they have a lot in their power to remove the bullying.

So really if they are doing nothing to remove the bullying ie blocking/deleting the bullies, they are perpetuating the bullying?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

In all honesty, the death of something is required for the greater good. Soldiers die in wars to protect, and the same occurs here, some people are bullied, but free speech should be protected.

Of course, policies in schools for bullying are required, but on the net, unless you can prove slander or defamation (but there are little to no damages), then you have no case. Ignore it.

you stupid bastard. be a utilitarian - free speech (in this case) is not of sufficient importance for anyone to die over it. fuck i hate you morons.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

hay guys lets promote free speech in one individual by taking the right away from someone else. in cases of bullying the victim often does not have access to free speech because they're utterly humiliated and can't face things anymore. this was seen in this case.

FREE SPEECH. FREEEE SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH
cunts

 

[khorne]

there are things more important than free speech. Bullying causes considerable harm to victims, and the perpetrators of bullying need to be punished. The suspension was warranted.

you stupid bastard. Fuck i hate you morons.

FREE SPEECH. FREEEE SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH
cunts

gg

 

[David Spade]

freedom or speech that is causing harm to someone else is obviously undermining the whole concept of freedom you dickhead khorne

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yes but unlike say in a classroom, where the child does not have much of a chance to remove themselves from the bullying, online they have a lot in their power to remove the bullying.

So really if they are doing nothing to remove the bullying ie blocking/deleting the bullies, they are perpetuating the bullying?

you're assuming that blocking/deleting the bully is going to end their suffering. its ok that you know everyone else is hearing shit about you, but as long as its not being said to your face (even though you know its going on) its ok

honestly you say such dumb crap. you're an idiot. go back and grow some more potatoes.

 

[David Spade]

you're assuming that blocking/deleting the bully is going to end their suffering. its ok that you know everyone else is hearing shit about you, but as long as its not being said to your face (even though you know its going on) its ok

honestly you say such dumb crap. you're an idiot. go back and grow some more potatoes.

did you get bullied nebz
i honestly cannot understand why you are very well adjusted and not at all socially inept

 

[khorne]

How does it? They are entitled to oppose those comments:

Eg:

Khorne you are a dickhead.

I retaliate with, all I am doing is having a peaceful debate, while you are directly attacking me. I see no reason for being a dickhead, and thus, your comments are unfounded.

My freedom of speech is used to oppose those comments in a civilised manner.

As far as I can see, everyone has the right to this freedom, which is as easily used to defend oneself, as it can be used to attack another.

 

[David Spade]

no u r a dickhed m8