By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:44:31 +0000

Targeting an individual to harass is not the same as making critical statements in general. A student should be allowed to express his dislike of homosexuals, but should not be using such comments to target and threaten any individuals. The same goes for religious children. The kid is fine saying “I’m a Christian” and praying to whatever deity he wishes, but when he targets an individual and attempts to proselytize after being asked to stop, I would label that as harassment also. You should have the right to express any belief you wish as long as you don’t accost and harass those who express the wish to be left in peace. Being harassed is not the same as being offended. Offense is an emotional reaction, harassment is an act done knowingly by one person to another. It can include: obstructing someone’s path, coming into within a foot or two of their personal space and shouting or acting threateningly, verbal threatening (both hinting and direct), incitement for others to harass or abuse the target, non-consensual touching, and refusal to respect a person’s wish to be left alone. Criticism against religion is the same. As long as your comments against religion aren’t harassment, you should be allowed to express them. In other words there’s a difference between: “Homosexuality is wrong.” (One shouldn’t have to supplement any statement with “I believe that” because it should be obvious that a person believes their own statements unless they are knowingly telling a lie.) and “Billy is gay; he’s wrong.” This is an attack on Billy, which has no place in a school environment. This is the beginning of harassment. One could also say: “Religion is false.” but to say “Jennifer is religious; she’s stupid.” This is the beginning of harassment. There is no reason to make an example of Jennifer or Billy when expressing these beliefs other than to draw negative attention to them. Also any threats made toward homosexuals or the religious in the aforementioned examples that doesn’t mention the names of the children are not necessarily harassment but hate speech and could have the same effect as incitement to harassment to any students known to be members of the hated group. I’m something of a free speech absolutist, and I’m against most anti hate speech legislation, but I think some forms can be classified as incitement to violence and should be considered as such.

By: jay

jay — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:46:00 +0000

It’s said that a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I must admit that I share some of their concerns (likely for different reasons.) It looks like we’re heading down the road of madness in the ‘speech codes’ for a few years ago. We already have laws governing harassment, targeting an individual in such a way as to interfere with their rights. But harassment law does not (and should not) cover more abstract expression of opinion. The exemption objected to is not just a religious thing but is (in proposed legislation I’ve seen) for ‘religious OR ethical’ reasons, and as such would indeed be constitutional. Of course we know that some of these folks are primarily motivated by the screwball religious angle, but, in a free society they’re allowed to do that. The problem is, that in many of these proposed laws, it’s the ‘victim’ that gets to choose what has offended or hurt them. I can guarantee you that strong ‘anti bullying’ laws WILL be used to suppress criticism of religion as hurtful and harmful. Another serious area of concern is the invoking teachers and others in monitoring students behavior in social media or other places OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL AND NOT ON SCHOOL TIME. What are we doing here? Why are we giving teachers and school officials authority and obligation to step, willy nilly into people’s private lives, conversations among friends, and other places where school officials have no damned business. Mandatory reporting of minor incidents is also an issue that can (and is in other contexts), but many times problems can be dealt with much more successfully in a quiet manner (the offended party is certainly should feel free to report without retribution if they feel the need). It’s a bad habit of our legal system that they feel the need to mandate collection of all sorts of stats on people, or things to throw at them later, but the most important thing should be dealing with the conflict, not filling some bureaucratic function). The most dangerous censors are those with good motives. Wendy Kaminer covers some of this much more elequently than I do: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/obama-administration-soft-on-bullying-hard-on-speech/72926/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/are-no-bullying-zones-constitutional/247867/

Comments on: Religious right defends ‘faith-based’ harassment

By: Charles

By: jay