Is School Bullying Protected Speech? That’s the title of a recent segment on the O’Reilly Factor in which O’Reilly & John Stossel debated the issue. John Stossel also wrote about it on his blog. When I saw the story of Phoebe Prince on the news, I was horrified. The 15-year-old committed suicide after being bullied relentlessly at school and online. In response to this & similar incidents, new anti-bullying laws are being enacted to protect kids. Free speech is protected under the First Amendment, but not if it's harassment, and schools can place restrictions on minors' speech. The ALA IF Manual explains, "Although minors do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, the Supreme Court has held that students' speech rights are not 'automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings'..." (386) One law being proposed in Louisiana
I’m glad I’m not the one trying to write the legislation here. It’s difficult to draw the line so that you protect kids from bullying but don't go too far in restricting the right to free speech. Stossel says that kids should be able to say I hate you, but not to call you up & tell you that at because that would be harassment. What do you guys think?
O’Reilly commented on how bullying is different now with the ability to do so on the computer. The computer and the Internet have increased our ability to communicate at all hours of the day and with people all over the world, but online communication lacks some of the context that we use to understand in-person communication.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stossel argued kids should be able to say “I hate you.” I jokingly tell my friends I hate them when they tell me they’re going to buy me holiday sweaters/vests for when I’m a librarian, but they can tell from my intonation and the look in my eye that I do not mean the words literally. Those clues are not available online, and an emotional teen might not think about all the alternatives of what the text could mean, but pick the worst one (I am not trying to negatively judge teens as a group, but reflecting on what I might have done at that age). I am not sure any message that could be harmful should be automatically safe; instead, speakers need to think about how their words might impact the listener, and make sure there is enough explanation so that the message is not misinterpreted.
Tough call. I lean on the side of no laws, personally. It's hard for me to see how one could draft an anti-bullying law that would be both effective and unlikely to be abused (no pun intended). Perhaps relying on harassment laws and whatnot would be better? Of course, I don't know how well those deal with internet bullying.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting topic and I enjoyed reading different points of view. Having briefly taught in public schools, I can attest to how mean students can be to other students. On one hand, I can see how important it is to protect students from bullying, but on the other hand, I just don't know how these laws can be enforced fairly for all.
ReplyDeleteLeah
I too was very intrigued with your post. Being a teacher in a public school, I see first hand how students act toward each other. I am totally appalled sometimes by what students say to their so called friends. A couple issues I have with the bullying laws is are
ReplyDelete1.)How will the laws be monitored and enforced?
2.)Middle school students (especially girls) are best friends one day then HATE each other the next and back again. How would this be handled?
3.)Will the laws change behavior or just change the manner in which the behavior occurs? What about character education which teaches things like conflict management and an understanding of others?
Just some thoughts...
I am leaning toward agreeing with the bullying laws. Most of the kids that I talk to have said that bullying occurs online much more than it does in school. It has made it very difficult for me (as a teacher) to understand interactions between kids and be able to report suspected bullying.
ReplyDeleteI think most of the monitoring would come from parents or the kids themselves. We had a student suspended for posting a video on YouTube where he rapped about jumping another kid. The "rapper" came to school and attacked the other boy. A parent unrelated to the two boys saw the video and reported it to the school. Since the school was made aware of the video, they were able to dole out a much harsher punishment.
The main problem with school bullying is that it creates an environment which is not conducive to learning. Children at this age are learning to build social cliques, and that develop dominance hierarchies through all means, and bullying is one of them. A school should not be a model of the African Savannah where we evolved to have some of the more brutal aspects of our nature, but a reflection of our more developed cultural side. Those who cannot conform to this higher culture, and choose to remain bullies should be removed. It should not be a criminal issue, but rules for an institution to succeed.
ReplyDeleteSo does bullying really disappear magically at 17? Or is everyone supposed to be so well adjusted and assimilated that bullying no longer hurts?
ReplyDeleteHow about corporate bullying?
I think that this is an important topic to debate, but in the end I just don't know that laws would be effective in dealing with the problem. It is not as though bullying started with the internet. And laws won't make it go away.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to protect children is nothing new and whenever something horrible like this happens adults react (usually by overreacting). I do not have a problem with harsher penalties for harassment when a minor is the one being harassed by an adult but saying that a 14 year old should be sent to JV for 6 months seems harsh. Plus, I know bullying exists but I doubt that taking it to this extent is very prevalent.
ReplyDeleteWhile I sometimes give Wikipedia a cursory glance as a tool for general information on a subject I would never reference it for an academic assignment due to its unreliability. With that being said, considering the professors history and experience in the field of physics I would give some credence to his claims of an alternate theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. It bothers me that a university of the stature of BYU would completely discount his theories without scientific investigation and penalize him by forced retirement. This smacks of suppression of intellectual freedom. It does not surprise me that a university known for its religious focus would choose this path.
ReplyDelete