On May 10, 2014, I wrote in the Political Pistachio article, Outlawing Bullying, Instituting Thoughtcrime, the dangers of anti-bullying laws, like the one being proposed in Carson, California. Allowing the government to criminalize, and define, the signs of bullying opens up the opportunity for hatecrime laws and thoughtcrime laws that strip us of many of our freedoms. The freedom of speech and religion would be the first victims of such laws, followed closely by government intrusion into our every actions as people use the bullying definitions to their advantage against political opponents, neighbors they've had disagreements with, ex-lovers, or for other targeting tactics.
Would every debate end in one of the participants being fined for bullying? Would an unhappy face in a text be considered bullying? Yelling? Would giving a bad grade to a student be considered a bullying tactic?
I don't hold the federal courts in high opinion, and their opinions, I believe, cannot modify law. However, sometimes their opinions hit the nail on the head, and in 1964, regarding this issue, that was exactly the case:
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Bouie v. City of Columbia (1964), the Constitution’s due process guarantees provide that “No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes.”
How can a person possibly predict what will cause someone to feel harassed or molested, or what will constitute a “legitimate purpose” in the eyes of police, prosecutors, judges and jurors?
The cyber-bullying part of the proposal was even more dangerous, actually criminalizing normal behavior between youngsters. . .
As the Heritage Foundation put it:
To make matters worse, some examples of offending conduct in the proposed ordinance describe much of what under-25 year-olds do on a daily basis. “[C]yberbullying may include sending hurtful, rude and mean text messages; spreading rumors or lies about others by email or social networks; and creating websites, videos or social medial profiles that embarrass, humiliate or make fun of others.” So, if you “embarrass” or “make fun” of someone, you could be found to have violated the statute. If you post a series of snarky comments on someone’s Facebook wall, you do so at the risk of criminal punishment.
I have never understood how people can even allow themselves to be offended. Who cares what other people say or think? Unless the attacks fall into the category of slander or libel, where one's professional reputation is damage by untrue accusations, and so forth, who cares? Why would you want to give anyone that kind of control over your emotions?
I get it, we have this overly sensitive society the liberals raised through the public school system, and now they want to use big government to protect the poor, soft hearts of their subjects of social engineering. This generation is mean, offensive, and then suicidal if on the receiving end of it, thanks to an onslaught of liberal teaching through the public school system, entertainment industry, and mainstream media. But is that reason to allow the government, be it a city government, or the federal government, to begin instituting legislation that outlaws your thoughts or possible motivations?
Fortunately, in Carson, the anti-bullying law was rejected by the city council. But, this is not the last we see of such idiotic attempts at creating thoughtcrime legislation at any level of government. This is only the beginning.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment