5 ms·

If cyber-bullying is really that problematic, it should be a crime. Schools aren’t called to solve crime; they should defer to the police.

by tomp 6y ago

SiempreViernes 6y ago
I'm confused: you say only the police should do something about it, so do you mean that society shouldn't try to prevent bullying, or that the police should run the schools?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  I assume they mean (and I agree) that society should try to prevent bullying (that is, criminal harrasment) by reporting it to the police, not by engaging in vigilante 'justice', which is what any school discipline for off campus activity (and really, cancel culture in general) amounts to. If you believe your vigilanteism is justified (because, and only because, the police won't or can't do their jobs) the onus is on you to clearly communicate that your actions are because the police won't or can't do their jobs, and to support that assertion with resonable evidence, in every single case.
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    Uh, so if a kid needs a stern talking to you better call the police (and not their parents) is what you are saying?
    - ipaddr 6y ago
      If someone is bullying online block them or call the police. Going to parents is probably unwise for a variety of reasons. Possible could solve the issue but more likely will increase the drama without providing any real punishment.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      If all they need is a stern talking to, then what they did isn't criminal harrassment.
      - nl 6y ago
        So "stern talking to" is the only action a school is allowed to take? If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment? Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.
        tomp 6y ago
        I’m ok with schools “punishing” people for breaking social norms, but the punishment should be proportional - detention, extra homework, public shaming, etc. But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        I am not sure how you got from "(responce <= stern talking to) implies !(severity >= criminal harassment)" to "(severity < criminal harassment) implies (responce <= stern talking to)"[0] via good-faith misinterpretation. If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.) 0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".
        nl 6y ago
        You seem to be making a bright line distinction between "at school" and "not at school". This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school? Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account. I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform. I don't see what is different or new here.
giantg2 6y ago
Harrassment and terroristic threats are crimes (varies by location). Most of the nastier bullying could fit those.
Balgair 6y ago
I think the issue is if adolescent cyberbullying rises to the level of a crime. Similar to the US military's idea of Non-Judicial Punishment[0] (drop and give me 50!), school administration often also has the lee-way of assigning punishment to students [1]. This punishment often does not rise to the level of a crime, but still requires action. Things like detention, cleaning toilets, scrubbing hallways, etc. Often, the bully is a minor themselves, and may not understand the implications of their effects. Giving them a police record may not be appropriate if a talking-to will stop the behavior. SCOTUS's ruling will flesh out this idea a bit more, maybe. If they rule that school administration is able to punish as they see fit for this case, then cyberbullying may be seen as something that does not typically rise to the level of a crime. If they do not, then cyberbullying may need to be revisited as a more serious action on the part of minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_discipline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_discipline
- haswell 6y ago
  I think it's also worth acknowledging the current climate and context of concerns about law enforcement in general. These issues are often deeply nuanced, and I don't think LEA is currently equipped to handle that nuance. The fact that the legal system isn't currently involved in some of these cases is arguably a good thing.

If cyber-bullying is really that problematic, it should be a crime. Schools aren’t called to solve crime; they should defer to the police.

by tomp 6y ago

If cyber-bullying is really that problematic, it should be a crime. Schools aren’t called to solve crime; they should defer to the police.

SiempreViernes 6y ago

I'm confused: you say only the police should do something about it, so do you mean that society shouldn't try to prevent bullying, or that the police should run the schools?

a1369209993 6y ago
I assume they mean (and I agree) that society should try to prevent bullying (that is, criminal harrasment) by reporting it to the police, not by engaging in vigilante 'justice', which is what any school discipline for off campus activity (and really, cancel culture in general) amounts to. If you believe your vigilanteism is justified (because, and only because, the police won't or can't do their jobs) the onus is on you to clearly communicate that your actions are because the police won't or can't do their jobs, and to support that assertion with resonable evidence, in every single case.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  Uh, so if a kid needs a stern talking to you better call the police (and not their parents) is what you are saying?
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    If someone is bullying online block them or call the police. Going to parents is probably unwise for a variety of reasons. Possible could solve the issue but more likely will increase the drama without providing any real punishment.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    If all they need is a stern talking to, then what they did isn't criminal harrassment.
    - nl 6y ago
      So "stern talking to" is the only action a school is allowed to take? If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment? Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.
      - tomp 6y ago
        I’m ok with schools “punishing” people for breaking social norms, but the punishment should be proportional - detention, extra homework, public shaming, etc. But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        I am not sure how you got from "(responce <= stern talking to) implies !(severity >= criminal harassment)" to "(severity < criminal harassment) implies (responce <= stern talking to)"[0] via good-faith misinterpretation. If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.) 0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".
        nl 6y ago
        You seem to be making a bright line distinction between "at school" and "not at school". This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school? Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account. I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform. I don't see what is different or new here.

giantg2 6y ago

Harrassment and terroristic threats are crimes (varies by location). Most of the nastier bullying could fit those.

Balgair 6y ago

I think the issue is if adolescent cyberbullying rises to the level of a crime. Similar to the US military's idea of Non-Judicial Punishment[0] (drop and give me 50!), school administration often also has the lee-way of assigning punishment to students [1]. This punishment often does not rise to the level of a crime, but still requires action. Things like detention, cleaning toilets, scrubbing hallways, etc. Often, the bully is a minor themselves, and may not understand the implications of their effects. Giving them a police record may not be appropriate if a talking-to will stop the behavior. SCOTUS's ruling will flesh out this idea a bit more, maybe. If they rule that school administration is able to punish as they see fit for this case, then cyberbullying may be seen as something that does not typically rise to the level of a crime. If they do not, then cyberbullying may need to be revisited as a more serious action on the part of minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_discipline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_discipline

haswell 6y ago
I think it's also worth acknowledging the current climate and context of concerns about law enforcement in general. These issues are often deeply nuanced, and I don't think LEA is currently equipped to handle that nuance. The fact that the legal system isn't currently involved in some of these cases is arguably a good thing.