Should internet speech be curtailed?

[Woodruff]

I'm with BBS on this one. INTERNET ANARCHY FTW!!!

I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

What constitutes as bullying to you? Or rather what constitutes as bullying that should be illegal?

I see any such potential laws as being very dangerous, way too much grey area.

After saying it, I realize that "law" might not have been the best choice of words. Also, this is how I would define internet bullying (non-exhaustive): cyber-harrassment, death threats, repeated unwarranted approaches, LGBT bashing, your basic bullying package.

The Internet provides many users an extremely valuable tool: thicker skin.

Please forward this to the parents, family members, and friends of teens who have committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

-rd

Life can be rough. Learning to deal with others and with your self are necessary skills to be gained. If one fails at this, then it's not necessarily the fault of that individual or the aggressor, who both to some degree are responsible. The peer groups and parents also matter, so if cyber-bullying leads to a death, I don't think it's wise to demand top-down laws (i.e. legislation) to rein in a few unruly people on the Internet because there are other means to deal with this problem:



(1) If anything, this reaction from cyber-bullying can lead to another unplanned change in the spontaneous order of the Internet. The cultural attitudes against such bullying create informal rules whereby others, if they deem such rules to be mutually beneficial, will adopt them and maybe encourage others to do the same. So, in this case, it's not like nothing is being done to correct cyber-bullying. The correction mechanism is difficult to realize since the outcome is "not of human design but of human action."

(2) Then, peer groups and parents are alerted to this phenomenon, which in turn can help to mitigate the drastic effects of cyber-bullying and what not, because they're more aware of this possibility.

Given (1) and (2), and humanity's ability to innovate, I don't see a need for laws--presumably legislated and enforced by a government, because others would simply create their own (informal) and perhaps formal laws. (One example: Forum Rules, no bigotry or hateful comments, etc.).

I definitely do not subscribe to the idea that "people will work it out and it will get taken care of informally" as a reason for not having formal laws regarding cyber-bullying, because I don't honestly believe it WILL get taken care of informally in most instances. And I don't believe that the loss of young life that WILL OCCUR is excusable when it could have been prevented with reasonable formal actions/laws in place. The suggestion seems very callous, inhumane and irresponsible to me.

[Symmetry]

Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

I guess the Internet is a backwards place for you? It's definitely a social order that is anarchistic.

Welcome to ConquerClub, please say hello to the moderators, and of course, the dudes in charge. You're typing on their tolerance you anarchist you.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Woodruff

No wonder you get so angry on the Internet.

Until the newer generations progressively overwhelm the older generations, I predict we'll see much improvement on the internet. Not in terms of decreased name-calling, but in terms of more opportunities and abilities to "deal with it."


People have been "working it out" and "things have been taken care of informally." This method has led to the development of the Internet after (and during) the emergence of ARPANET.


"And I don't believe that the loss of young life that WILL OCCUR is excusable when it could have been prevented with reasonable formal actions/laws in place. "

So, anti-bullying laws would somehow prevent suicides? Just as, laws against murder prevent murders? I'd argue that what mainly prevents most people from being jerks to each other, or murdering others, has more to do with informal rules than formal rules.

Anyway, how about letting the courts decide the degree to which one is responsible for causing someone to commit suicide? I'm in favor of common law as oppose to legislation, which tends to be too heavy-handed, misses the point, creates more costs than benefits, and creates new problems which require more legislation which creates more problems, etc.

[BigBallinStalin]

Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

I guess the Internet is a backwards place for you? It's definitely a social order that is anarchistic.

Welcome to ConquerClub, please say hello to the moderators, and of course, the dudes in charge. You're typing on their tolerance you anarchist you.

You've missed the point. You're dissing anarchy when you are in a digital space which lacks a government, thus is in anarchy. Currently, we're in an organization within the Internet with its own rules to which you can voluntarily agree to or reject and leave (or be exiled, whichever comes first). An anarchistic world (i.e. the Internet) does allows for organizations to form and create their own rules. You can have these organizations and still exist within an anarchistic world, provided that there's no overarching government which dictates the rules with which all cyber-denizens must comply. That would be the opposite of anarchy.

[Symmetry]

Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

I guess the Internet is a backwards place for you? It's definitely a social order that is anarchistic.

Welcome to ConquerClub, please say hello to the moderators, and of course, the dudes in charge. You're typing on their tolerance you anarchist you.

You've missed the point. You're dissing anarchy when you are in a digital space which lacks a government, thus is in anarchy. Currently, we're in an organization within the Internet with its own rules to which you can voluntarily agree to or reject and leave (or be exiled, whichever comes first). An anarchistic world (i.e. the Internet) does allows for organizations to form and create their own rules. You can have these organizations and still exist within an anarchistic world, provided that there's no overarching government which dictates the rules with which all cyber-denizens must comply. That would be the opposite of anarchy.

It would be the opposite of a world government, perhaps, but it ain't anarchy. You and i are operating within a structure of governance while we chat here. Let's not play at being anarchists, hey BBS? Fun, as I'm sure you think it is, the internet is not an anarchy.

[nietzsche]

Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

I dunno.

I mean, self-censorship is the best possible solution, I cannot really see a law big enough to take into account all possibilities, and when laws get big only those with money to pay attorneys get ahead. It's a very imperfect system, I'm not going to mention all the problems that such a law could have because I would make this too long, but you get the picture.

In the end there will be a lot of laws for the internet. And there will be prosecution. But laws against cyberbullying and all that IMO are unnecessary.

[BigBallinStalin]

Anarchy is the absence of government--not the absence of governance. Anarchy does not mean chaos either.

Governance can be applied by either the government or not by government (i.e. in a state of anarchy). In other words, governance != government. Governance can also entail self-governing organizations or social orders with their informal institutions.

Within Conquerclub, we live under its formal rules, its own form of governance. In this narrow scope, ConquerClub is a government to which most of us dedicate $25 per year and receive benefits (free-riders are welcome). On the Internet, (note: a much wider scope traversing numerous political boundaries), we live in a state of anarchy. There is no overarching government enforcing its rules. At that level, there's informal institutions and the governance which it brings and which evolves.

[PLAYER57832]

Should we have more laws (fewer?) limiting what is put on the web? Should web rules be the same as or different from laws on print media?

From the outset, I find it interesting how similar your views and mine corrospond on this, though we generally have very different perspectives pollitically.

Some laws I like:
no posting pictures of dead bodies (aside from certain "mass casualty" events not in closeup) without permission of family or prior permission of the deceased.

I think you hit on what needs to happen. That is, not censorship per se, but privacy. The problem is not so much that bodies are posted, it is that bodies of people who would not want to be seen that way or who's famlies would not want them to be seen that way are put out.

The other issue is whether individuals have the right to choose not to see such images. I have no problem with such being included without warning on, say, articles about WWII or a mass casualty event. It would not be honest to leave that out, then. However, if I go to a game site or just a general information site (even, to some extent, a basic news site), then I should be able to do so without having to see that body.

In other words, the issue is not so much post/don't post, but the ability to choose... and appropriate versus inappropriate context. I think we can distinguish that if given the tools.

Anti bullying (needs to be evaluated constantly, but roughly akin to anti libel laws).

The problem with "bullying" is that the term is just so over-used its meaningless.
It has to be divided up into a few different categories. A lot of "bullying" would be covered by stricter privacy laws. Right now, a 12 year old can post pictures of his sister taking a shower as a joke.. and find it goes viral OR a twenty something can threaten to post or actually post pictures of his girlfriend in "compromising" and "revealing" positions and widely disburse them as a way of harming her/controlling her. The first would be essentially "innocent in intent", the second obviously not, but in neither case would the victim have any control over the images. I have to think it would not be that technically unfeasible to require permission before real images of "naked individuals" (of course, that would have to be defined, but keeping this simple)

A second situation is true libel.. someone posting harmful garbage about someone else. But again, the real harm is that this information can be transmitted over and over without any kind of permission or verification. To a large point, controlling this is impossible. As we have seen in just this site, what some people consider terrible is just "play" to other people. I think we can draw the line at direct threats, but other than that.....

One thought I have is to have almost automatic time limits on certain kinds of speech. If I say something stupid to someone, it might hurt, but then its generally gone. The biggest difference with the internet is that it isn't "gone".. ever. I don't know how this would work, technically. However, most casual chat and such would just disappear after a set time -- maybe few months or maybe a couple of years.

A law I would like (though doubt it will happen): Scientific information has to be "vetted" or is clearly labeled "just opinion". I have no problem per se with people posting their own ideas, be it that aliens are causing cancer or whatever (Who knows? Some "poppycock" ideas wind up being correct). However, they have to go through the process of actually proving their ideas valid. I DO have a problem when they can create a site that kids, even adults cannot distinguish from real, verified, science.

This is a very hot topic for me.

The key is not to vet the ideas themselves, but to vet the methodology used. I would like to have something like a domain ending "science" or "science journal" or some such. That site would be owned by established journals and societies who already pretty much "police" themselves.

One tier would be for basic, accepted information -- sort of the "scientific American" or "school textbook" level. The information is good, but pretty basic and easy to understand.
Approval/disapproval would be similar to that for textbooks, but the internet would allow far more input from professional groups.

The next tier might include government "white papers" -- that is, literature that is generally "trustworthy", but that has not been peer-reviewed.

Another section might include things like graduate papers and the like.

The final would be reserved for peer reviewed journal articles.

I forsee a lot of new entities springing up, but to get to the highest tier would mean adhering to currently accepted standards for the industry/science, just as is the case today.

The big problem is funding. A LOT of people have no idea that just to get an article accepted by a major journal costs money. Fifteen years ago, roughly when I was published first, it cost about $500, plus the cost of any copies of the journal you wanted for your own use to be published in a particular fisheries journal. Note, this was NOT a "bribe" or such. It is just that these journals are of limited circulation, don't take advertising and have to pay for themselves somehow. Usually a university or government agency or grant of some kind will cover the money. However, it can be a deal breaker for non-institutional research.

[Symmetry]

Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

I dunno.

I mean, self-censorship is the best possible solution, I cannot really see a law big enough to take into account all possibilities, and when laws get big only those with money to pay attorneys get ahead. It's a very imperfect system, I'm not going to mention all the problems that such a law could have because I would make this too long, but you get the picture.

In the end there will be a lot of laws for the internet. And there will be prosecution. But laws against cyberbullying and all that IMO are unnecessary.

Self-censorship was kind of what Milton went for when he argued against government censorship in Areopagitica with regard to print, but even he saw that that although its the best way, there have to be safeguards in place.

I think you might like Milton- you see the heart of the problem and also see the problems its beats might cause. The arguments for chaos in unfettered print are pretty much the same as those being used against the interwebs, and those used for it are sadly the same too.

[patches70]

Self-censorship was kind of what Milton went for when he argued against government censorship in Areopagitica with regard to print, but even he saw that that although its the best way, there have to be safeguards in place.

I think you might like Milton- you see the heart of the problem and also see the problems its beats might cause. The arguments for chaos in unfettered print are pretty much the same as those being used against the interwebs, and those used for it are sadly the same too.

f*ck Milton. He was a Statist, big government, CB controlled stooge who masqueraded as a Free Market Economist.

Wait a minute....what Milton are you talking about?

[rdsrds2120]

Self-censorship was kind of what Milton went for when he argued against government censorship in Areopagitica with regard to print, but even he saw that that although its the best way, there have to be safeguards in place.

I think you might like Milton- you see the heart of the problem and also see the problems its beats might cause. The arguments for chaos in unfettered print are pretty much the same as those being used against the interwebs, and those used for it are sadly the same too.

f*ck Milton. He was a Statist, big government, CB controlled stooge who masqueraded as a Free Market Economist.

Wait a minute....what Milton are you talking about?

-rd

[Symmetry]

Self-censorship was kind of what Milton went for when he argued against government censorship in Areopagitica with regard to print, but even he saw that that although its the best way, there have to be safeguards in place.

I think you might like Milton- you see the heart of the problem and also see the problems its beats might cause. The arguments for chaos in unfettered print are pretty much the same as those being used against the interwebs, and those used for it are sadly the same too.

f*ck Milton. He was a Statist, big government, CB controlled stooge who masqueraded as a Free Market Economist.

Wait a minute....what Milton are you talking about?

John, but I enjoyed the joke.

[Army of GOD]

I'm not sure if I would call the internet anarchist merely because even on the internet, we have to adhere to the laws of the country we surf el web on.

But I completely disagree with rds' "bullying" laws. I'm sorry, but the LGBT community isn't the only one to ever be bullied. If you make bulling them illegal, then pretty much any insult ever will be (or should be) illegal. People "bully" me all the time on the intertubes (read any of natty(_)dread's posts in response to me and you'll find a poorly thought out short joke), so should that be illegal too (note: I have no problem with his awful attempts at humo[u]r). Like BBS said, there's way too much gray area.

Though, death threats, as you mentioned should be illegal, don't really constitute "bullying". There's an incredible gray area there too.

[Army of GOD]

The beauty of the internet is that, as long as someone isn't going Clockwork Orange on your ass and forcing your eyes to stare at a computer screen, is that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it. It's amazing though how many opinions you'll find on here, regardless if they're just a troll or not.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if I would call the internet anarchist merely because even on the internet, we have to adhere to the laws of the country we surf el web on.

But I completely disagree with rds' "bullying" laws. I'm sorry, but the LGBT community isn't the only one to ever be bullied. If you make bulling them illegal, then pretty much any insult ever will be (or should be) illegal. People "bully" me all the time on the intertubes (read any of natty(_)dread's posts in response to me and you'll find a poorly thought out short joke), so should that be illegal too (note: I have no problem with his awful attempts at humo[u]r). Like BBS said, there's way too much gray area.

Though, death threats, as you mentioned should be illegal, don't really constitute "bullying". There's an incredible gray area there too.

The beauty of the internet is that, as long as someone isn't going Clockwork Orange on your ass and forcing your eyes to stare at a computer screen, is that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it. It's amazing though how many opinions you'll find on here, regardless if they're just a troll or not.

Not really how bullying works though, is it? That's kind of one of RD's points- bullying ain't confined to cyber space, that's just another medium.

You may not have to read shit that someone posts on your facebook page, or the nastiness that people e-mail you, but if its being read by everyone you know, and being forwarded to your family and friends, developing a thick skin doesn't quite cover it.

[Army of GOD]

I'm not sure if I would call the internet anarchist merely because even on the internet, we have to adhere to the laws of the country we surf el web on.

But I completely disagree with rds' "bullying" laws. I'm sorry, but the LGBT community isn't the only one to ever be bullied. If you make bulling them illegal, then pretty much any insult ever will be (or should be) illegal. People "bully" me all the time on the intertubes (read any of natty(_)dread's posts in response to me and you'll find a poorly thought out short joke), so should that be illegal too (note: I have no problem with his awful attempts at humo[u]r). Like BBS said, there's way too much gray area.

Though, death threats, as you mentioned should be illegal, don't really constitute "bullying". There's an incredible gray area there too.

The beauty of the internet is that, as long as someone isn't going Clockwork Orange on your ass and forcing your eyes to stare at a computer screen, is that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it. It's amazing though how many opinions you'll find on here, regardless if they're just a troll or not.

Not really how bullying works though, is it? That's kind of one of RD's points- bullying ain't confined to cyber space, that's just another medium.

Still, at what point does "bullying" become bad enough that it's illegal? It's way too subjective.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if I would call the internet anarchist merely because even on the internet, we have to adhere to the laws of the country we surf el web on.

But I completely disagree with rds' "bullying" laws. I'm sorry, but the LGBT community isn't the only one to ever be bullied. If you make bulling them illegal, then pretty much any insult ever will be (or should be) illegal. People "bully" me all the time on the intertubes (read any of natty(_)dread's posts in response to me and you'll find a poorly thought out short joke), so should that be illegal too (note: I have no problem with his awful attempts at humo[u]r). Like BBS said, there's way too much gray area.

Though, death threats, as you mentioned should be illegal, don't really constitute "bullying". There's an incredible gray area there too.

The beauty of the internet is that, as long as someone isn't going Clockwork Orange on your ass and forcing your eyes to stare at a computer screen, is that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it. It's amazing though how many opinions you'll find on here, regardless if they're just a troll or not.

Not really how bullying works though, is it? That's kind of one of RD's points- bullying ain't confined to cyber space, that's just another medium.

Still, at what point does "bullying" become bad enough that it's illegal? It's way too subjective.

I'm not sure what you're arguing- I'm generally in favour of curtailment before it gets too far. When it gets too far, it's generally kind of obvious, and that's where we have systems of police, lawyers, judges and juries. I'm not going for a full lock down, but that's all subjective too, and I hope you don't object so much that you want that thrown out.

Adaptation is the key, both for law and for people. It's silly to demand that the law go away and that everyone evolve a thick skin.

[Woodruff]

And I don't believe that the loss of young life that WILL OCCUR is excusable when it could have been prevented with reasonable formal actions/laws in place.

So, anti-bullying laws would somehow prevent suicides? Just as, laws against murder prevent murders? I'd argue that what mainly prevents most people from being jerks to each other, or murdering others, has more to do with informal rules than formal rules.

I absolutely believe that anti-bullying laws would help to prevent suicides, because they would help action to be taken against the cyber-bullies BEFORE THE SUICIDE TAKES PLACE. There is no question in my mind of this, and yes it is very much like the laws against murder. Will it stop all instances? Of course not. To suggest that it must before it could be implemented is ludicrous.

Anyway, how about letting the courts decide the degree to which one is responsible for causing someone to commit suicide? I'm in favor of common law as oppose to legislation, which tends to be too heavy-handed, misses the point, creates more costs than benefits, and creates new problems which require more legislation which creates more problems, etc.

Yes, and no. I don't completely disagree with you, and yet...the courts do still need guidance for their decisions. There must be reasoned consistency. Otherwise, you just get "but it's not against the law".

[Woodruff]

Though, death threats, as you mentioned should be illegal, don't really constitute "bullying". There's an incredible gray area there too.

Don't constitute bullying? How do you figure that?

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure if I would call the internet anarchist merely because even on the internet, we have to adhere to the laws of the country we surf el web on.

But I completely disagree with rds' "bullying" laws. I'm sorry, but the LGBT community isn't the only one to ever be bullied. If you make bulling them illegal, then pretty much any insult ever will be (or should be) illegal. People "bully" me all the time on the intertubes (read any of natty(_)dread's posts in response to me and you'll find a poorly thought out short joke), so should that be illegal too (note: I have no problem with his awful attempts at humo[u]r). Like BBS said, there's way too much gray area.

Though, death threats, as you mentioned should be illegal, don't really constitute "bullying". There's an incredible gray area there too.

The beauty of the internet is that, as long as someone isn't going Clockwork Orange on your ass and forcing your eyes to stare at a computer screen, is that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it. It's amazing though how many opinions you'll find on here, regardless if they're just a troll or not.

Not really how bullying works though, is it? That's kind of one of RD's points- bullying ain't confined to cyber space, that's just another medium.

Still, at what point does "bullying" become bad enough that it's illegal? It's way too subjective.

It is subjective to a degree, I can agree with that. And yet, there is a point where it does become pretty clearly activity that should be considered illegal. Just as with bullying "in person".

[Army of GOD]

Just as with bullying "in person".

That's the thing. I don't think it's as obvious to me as to how much bullying is too much. I feel like, as long as there isn't an end game (a suicide or something) of some sort, it's just a vague spectrum of bullying intensity.

god dammit. argument of the beard again.

Also, not only is the bullying intensity subjective, but the victim's sensitivity.

[Woodruff]

Just as with bullying "in person".

That's the thing. I don't think it's as obvious to me as to how much bullying is too much. I feel like, as long as there isn't an end game (a suicide or something) of some sort, it's just a vague spectrum of bullying intensity.

Seeing it in the school all the time, I don't agree at all that it's a vague spectrum of bullying intensity. There are specific actions that are a part of "the bullying concept", if you will, that take the bullying to a level where active action against the bullies needs to be taken.

Also, not only is the bullying intensity subjective, but the victim's sensitivity.

Certainly the victim's sensitivity comes into play as far as whether a suicide is likely to result, but I don't agree that the victim's sensitivity should be considered as far as any law is concerned. That is a road down to making any law useless.

[rdsrds2120]

Just as with bullying "in person".

That's the thing. I don't think it's as obvious to me as to how much bullying is too much. I feel like, as long as there isn't an end game (a suicide or something) of some sort, it's just a vague spectrum of bullying intensity.

god dammit. argument of the beard again.

Also, not only is the bullying intensity subjective, but the victim's sensitivity.

Kind of like, you know, if someone's murdered, and like, they were suicidal anyway, the murderer shouldn't be charged extra time at all, you know? I mean, the victim wasn't sensitive to dying, so, you know totally cool.

You're right. It is an argument of the beard, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and merely saying it's subjective isn't going to make the issue go away or any different to deal with.

-rd

[Army of GOD]

Just as with bullying "in person".

That's the thing. I don't think it's as obvious to me as to how much bullying is too much. I feel like, as long as there isn't an end game (a suicide or something) of some sort, it's just a vague spectrum of bullying intensity.

god dammit. argument of the beard again.

Also, not only is the bullying intensity subjective, but the victim's sensitivity.

Kind of like, you know, if someone's murdered, and like, they were suicidal anyway, the murderer shouldn't be charged extra time at all, you know? I mean, the victim wasn't sensitive to dying, so, you know totally cool.

You're right. It is an argument of the beard, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and merely saying it's subjective isn't going to make the issue go away or any different to deal with.

-rd

I'm not sure what the underlined has anything to do with anything, but ok.

Certainly the victim's sensitivity comes into play as far as whether a suicide is likely to result, but I don't agree that the victim's sensitivity should be considered as far as any law is concerned. That is a road down to making any law useless.

I'm just pointing out that people have different reactions to bullying. Some are emotionally damaged, others are aggressive towards the bully and others just ignore it. If you were to bully two kids "the same amount" (in quotes because super-hypothetical), one ended up taking their own life and the other beat the bully up, would their cases be treated by the law similarly?

[Woodruff]

Certainly the victim's sensitivity comes into play as far as whether a suicide is likely to result, but I don't agree that the victim's sensitivity should be considered as far as any law is concerned. That is a road down to making any law useless.

I'm just pointing out that people have different reactions to bullying. Some are emotionally damaged, others are aggressive towards the bully and others just ignore it. If you were to bully two kids "the same amount" (in quotes because super-hypothetical), one ended up taking their own life and the other beat the bully up, would their cases be treated by the law similarly?

I would hope so, yes. How the victim reacts to the bully shouldn't be relevant (although I recognize that it could sway judges/juries through lawyers using emotional means), except as to how the victim might also fall under the purview of the law (if they were to kill the bully, for instance).