The right to bully (1 Viewer)

[khorne]

Nicely played.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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.

i have a better, more peaceful solution: just get rid of bullies. a utilitarian calculation will reveal this to be good, cuz bullies go on to be murderers anyhow

 

[khorne]

But inherently, there will always be bullies, as some individuals wish to exert more power or perhaps induce fear into others.

 

[David Spade]

and they should be dealt with?

Edit: gas chambers

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

But inherently, there will always be bullies, as some individuals wish to exert more power or perhaps induce fear into others.

that doesnt make them a bully you moronic clod

 

[khorne]

that doesnt make them a bully you moronic clod

And? I didn't say all were, but some are...

Perhaps are more suitable argument would be the anonymity the internet offers, which causes more people to act, like, well, yourself?

 

[Planck]

This is about first amendment rights in the US, we all dig this?

 

[Planck]

that doesnt make them a bully you moronic clod

Yeah it makes a lot of them government figures.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

i dont want any more mealy-mouthed talk from the member for Bennelong!

keating was a bully, but the most entertaining parliamentarian followed closely by costello, another bully.


im torn

 

[khorne]

Ok Nebuchanezzar, I will make a concession on one of my points.

Freedom of speech (and tought) should be limited in respect to actions evoked by it. What I mean by that is, say, you shouted "Shark" while swimming, and of course, many people would exit the water, i.e this speech evokes action.

No form of bullying or slanderous text should seek to evoke any actions (especially physical fighting), and this type should also be moderated or controlled.

 

[Planck]

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

I'd say it is upholding it to be honest. Speech is a very powerful tool and it is a waste of resources to regulate it.

I think the fact that children are being bullied is indicative of a further issue within the schooling system. Children being forced into public schools with no choice of school and no ability to move between schools (outside of catchments, etc) will lead to bullying.

Vouchers would probably solve this problem

~Libertopia - LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA~

 

[Planck]

Ok Nebuchanezzar, I will make a concession on one of my points.

Freedom of speech (and tought) should be limited in respect to actions evoked by it. What I mean by that is, say, you shouted "Shark" while swimming, and of course, many people would exit the water, i.e this speech evokes action.

What about people who get off on having shark yelled while they're in the water?

Rules and regulations about what is appropriate can be deemed by property owners, not by the government.

 

[David Spade]

employing bigger kids to bash bullies would be a good policy imo

Edit: school police

 

[khorne]

In a sense, rights need to be balanced, such that one right doe snot impinge on another, such to abridge said right. However, severely reducing the power of speech is not the solution.

More objectively, free speech is the only power many of us have in this country. Apart from electing politicians, we don't actually have a great say in matters regarding the running of this country. However, if a politician does not meet public expectations, they will, of course, not be re-elected. Thus, the freedom of speech and the additional rights it brings with it (choice, etc) are essential to us.

 

[Planck]

Schoolyard security services imho

Deregulate the enforcing and pay the kids to act as security.

Perfect.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[Planck]

You don't have a right to not be offended. Pretty straightforward.

 

[David Spade]

schoolyard trials
evidence of bullying
appropriate punishments

 

[khorne]

Pistols at dawn

 

[Planck]

Market courts establishing the financial impact of bullying and appropriate torts

 

[incentivation]

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.

My very rudimentary understanding is too inept for such a complex area of the law.

Of course the slanderer must prove their accusation, however is this not only when action is sought by the subject?

At the very least, the law provides recourse for those whose reputation/image has been falsely or misleadingly tarnished; a worthy restriction on freedom of speech.