Michigan's "license to bully" bill

Chagen

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/03/360387/michigan-senator-condemns-republican-license-to-bully-as-worse-than-doing-nothing/ "Yesterday, the Michigan Republican-controlled Senate passed a “license to bully” bill, which not only neglects to protect students based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but creates a special exception for bullies who have a “sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.” In other words a, say, christian, could beat up a gay kid and get away with it. What. THE. FUCK. (Sorry for the politically biased source, I only found out about this minutes ago)

ClockworkUniverse

So...if I have a moral conviction that bullies deserve to have each of their fingers individually broken, I could do that?

Vivi

Yeah, I have a moral conviction to beat up senators.

Forzare

Wha...?

gentlemanorcus

-insert image macro about seeing where this is going here-

Chagen

http://michiganmessenger.com/53702/senate-passes-license-to-bully-legislation

Here's a somewhat better source.

Turns out the GOP did this. I am not surprised.

Schitzo

FUCK THEM UP

Legionnaire

fdsfkjhdsfkjhsdfkjhvkfjldhgjkhdvklxcv

This makes me angry. Very, very, angry. I am so damn glad I don't live in America.

Nyktos

Actually, it looks like it doesn't actually allow physical bullying based on religious beliefs. So it just means a Christian is free to call the insecure gay kid a worthless fag who deserves to burn in hell for all eternity.

Still retarded though.

gentlemanorcus

-insert threat of violence toward senators, and then insert example of a Christian bullying a gay person since that's the only kind of bullying that ever happens ever here-

Schitzo

STOMP THEM IN THE NUTS WHILE SHOUTING "lol I was just playing dood"

DYRE

So...if I have a moral conviction that bullies deserve to have each of their fingers individually broken, I could do that?

Yeah, I have a moral conviction to beat up senators.

-insert threat of violence toward senators

Because clearly, violence is okay as long as it's directed toward a particular group that you don't like, rather than a particular group that someone else doesn't like, right?  See, this is a bullshit law, but saying things like that is unproductive and kinda hypocritical.

gentlemanorcus

^ You do realize I was mocking that kind of behavior, right?

ClockworkUniverse

^^I was mostly trying to say that it's an extremely vague law, and thus pretty bullshit.

DYRE

You do realize I was mocking that kind of behavior, right?

I suspected it, but it's hard to tell with the internet and all.  Good to hear that you weren't serious, I guess.

RedEyedAbyss

...this is dead fucking serious?

...

...I have no words. Or macros.

LouieW

I am not sure I am really qualified to comment on the bill itself, but I was curious as to what the defender of the bill meant by "religious free speech protections" when discussing the exception mentioned in Chagen's original post.

It looks like he was referencing an incident when a student objected to a teacher's support of solidarity with people who had been bullied for being gay. There is some more information about it here and here if anyone is interested.

InsanityAddict

Shit such as this gets passed, and come tomorrow these folks are still going to have asspain about how they are the prosecuted minority themselves.

captainbrass

I hate to spoil everyone's fun, but the stated point of this amendment is to protect people's existing free speech rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. If it didn't, then what would probably happen is a long and expensive court battle between the State of Michigan and the first obnoxious teenager that wants to assert their constitutional right to say in school that "God hates fags" (or, indeed, that He "hates haters of fags"). They would argue the law to be unconstitutional.

Taking that into account, I can see why they did this. It does then raise the question of whether you should have such wide free speech rights in your constitution but that's another thread. 

Malkavian

Brass,

Minors don't have the same rights adults do.'

In addition, we have such things as hate speech, obscenity, and common sense laws that do put limitations of free speech, so it's not like there's no precedent.

And seriously, the idea of freedom of speech applying in a public school scenario is just dumb. Of course, you don't have the right to say God hates fags in class for the same reason you don't have the right to cuss out the teacher. if a kid tried to say such crap as is it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect him to get suspended.

RedEyedAbyss

I hate the freedom of speech excuse. People that invoke this more often than not forget that freedom of speech is restricted by, well, other people having rights too.

Chagen

Doesn't Freedom of Speech apply only to statements not directed at another specific person?

Nyktos

Freedom of speech is more accurately termed freedom of expression, which both makes it clear that it applies to non-verbal forms of expression as well and also gives a bitter idea of what it's really meant to be about, which is the freedom to express one's beliefs.

vandro

I really don't like freedom of expression, it allows lies to be expressed as truths. And I believe honestly that he who's beliefs run counter to acceptance and tolerance doesn't deserve to be tolerated: i.e.: white-supremacists deserve no protection as people because of their intolerant beliefs, fanatics of any religion that believe all other religions should be erradicated deserve no protection either.

InsanityAddict

Freedom of expression is essential for allowing closeted phobics to voice their true opinions and make an ass of themselves in the process, instead of seeking refuge in sanitized rhetoric that is still based on the same basic principles, but is so cleaned up that it flies over the heads of most people.

Also, it's a two-way street. Anyone who voices an opinion but falls into fits of asspain when people respond to that opinion in a manner they don't like instantly loses all freedom-of-expression excuse credits.

Chagen

Also, not having freedom of speech will quickly lead into a dictatorship that bans all dissenting speech whatsoever.

Nyktos

I'll point out that there are plenty of countries that have hate speech legislation and have for quite some time that have not turned into Orwellian dictatorships.

Which isn't to say that I necessarily agree with hate speech laws; I'm somewhat on the fence about the issue.

PrincessApricot

“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.”

That is the only section quoted from the bill.

It is limited to statement, and thus *verbal* confirmation of held beliefs. While this does mean that someone could verbally abuse someone on a religious basis, it does not mean that you can beat people up because of religious convictions.

Given that I am not presently inclined to read the bill in its entirety, someone please quote a section of the bill which does, in fact, encourage physical harm.

Keep in mind that I don't like the nature of the bill either, but rather I am presently perturbed by the quality of the journalism reporting it.

Vivi

I WANT TO BEAT UP SOMETHING, APRI

vandro

I am perfectly aware, Chagen, doesn't mean I can't detest lies above anything else.

PrincessApricot

Physical violence has *always* been illegal, and speech has *always* been protected to a certain point. I honestly can't see how this bill could do anything to change stuff, other than by increasing the punishment faced by bullies, or by further restricting speech.

Those options could easily have many very nasty consequences, however, given the stupidity with which most schools try to enforce rules.

Zero tolerance laws, I'm looking at you.