Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Government The Courts The Internet News

Ontario Proposes School Cyber-Bullying Law 267

Posted by kdawson from the first-in-a-trend dept.
nursegirl writes "Ontario announced today a proposal to change their education act to add both physical bullying and cyber-bullying to the list of behaviors that can get a student suspended or expelled. Posting comments, pictures, or videos attacking other students or teachers outside of school hours will carry the risk of school punishment, if the incident is believed to have an 'impact on school climate.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ontario Proposes School Cyber-Bullying Law More

Ontario Proposes School Cyber-Bullying Law

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @12:43AM (#18778411)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Good on them. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sinanju ( 588194 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @01:09AM (#18778555)
      No, having to grow a thick skin is the price of living in a _free_ society. People are free to say what they like about you (short of libel or slander), even if it hurts your feelings.

      • Re:Good on them. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Admiral Ag ( 829695 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @01:34AM (#18778667)
        We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying. But a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't yet have the maturity to deal with these things. As an adult, I don't really care if people say mean things about me, and by and large people don't. But high school is a place where you are forced to go with a lot of people who often don't like each other and who spend their time inventing new and cruel ways to torture each other. Often it works because most teenagers care deeply about what the community thinks of them.

        For example: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html [paulgraham.com]

        Laws against adult bullying are a lot more lax because adult bullies have a lot less opportunity to actually have an effect. Children are a lot more vulnerable to this sort of behaviour, both because of their age and the fact that they are pretty much stuck in school and not allowed out. If you hate your co-workers, you can always try to find a new job. In many societies you can't change schools that easily, if at all. Children are also more likely to engage in sociopathic behaviour towards their peers.

        Yes. Having a thick skin is the price of living in a free society... but for adults, not for children.

        • Re:Good on them. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @02:44AM (#18778983)

          We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying.

          That's because back in the dark ages when *they* were kids, telephones still had cables attached and there was music on MTV, their parents told them they needed to get over it and stop being such a baby. Unfortunately with today's helicopter parents, bringing up the cotton-wool generation(s), the mere _suggestion_ that someone might be doing any sort of vague harm to their precious darlings is enough to get them parachuting in with all lawyers blazing.

        • Re:Good on them. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Twylite ( 234238 ) <twylite.crypt@co@za> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @02:49AM (#18779005) Homepage

          Adults don't magically gain maturity on reaching 18 or 21. Maturity is gained through a process of learning to have a thick skin ... and that starts very young.

          Bullying can only occur when there is a disparity between the aggressor's ability to attack, and the victim's ability to defend. Thus "nerds" being the victims of bullying "jocks".

          Now along comes the Internet, and Oh Crap! Jonny Football Hero can't physically bully Nedrick the Nerd anymore, or he's going to have himself photoshopped into a very compromising position and plastered on the bathroom walls.

          Taunting has long been the only weapon of the victim of physical bullying. The Institution doesn't give a rat's arse unless they manage to catch a bully in the act. The only "problem" here is that now nerds have given taunting a power-up with technology, to the point that it is actually an effective weapon for a counter-attack.

          Children are also more likely to engage in sociopathic behaviour towards their peers.

          Although that this statement is completely unfounded, it makes a good point for enforcing rules against physical bullying and leaving free speech the hell alone. It's not coincidence that school shootings are carried out by unpopular, downtrodden kids. If a little more attention was paid to making the True American Football Players realise that being a wimp isn't Unamerican and worthy of being pushed around, then (a) the 99.8% of school football players who don't turn it into a career will get better jobs working for the wimps, and (b) the wimps are less likely to prove that they are clever enough to take out the entire class by applying a bit of forethought (bring a gun) and less weightlifting.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Admiral Ag ( 829695 )
            "Adults don't magically gain maturity on reaching 18 or 21."

            No they don't. Some of them never do. But I tire of this so-called "argument". We can't tailor the law to every single individual, so we set an age (usually 18) where most people are considered to be responsible. If you think that is the wrong age when most people are responsible, then agitate for it to be raised or lowered. Abandoning it is not an option.

            So what if we have to put up with a few mature kids being denied adult rights, or a few immatu

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Twylite ( 234238 )

              Um, my point here is that maturiy is a process, not a date. I'm not arguing about the need to have a date (since we can't assess maturity on an individual basis), but about the idea what we must completely shield people under that age from the stuff they will encounter and have to deal with as adults, thereby preventing the process of maturity, and ensuring that they WILL be children rather than adults at that date.

              Emphasis here is on completely shield. Obviously non-adults need greater protection than

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by freemywrld ( 821105 )
                I don't think the issue is so much about needing to "completely shield" children from what they will face as adults, but part of gaining maturity and the ability to naviagate society as an adult is understanding that there are consequences for our actions. I think that is more what the aim here is. Kids, like, adults, need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that there are real-world consequences for things like harrassment.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Twylite ( 234238 )

                  ...and realize that there are real-world consequences for things like harrassment.

                  Yes ... I learned that by appealing to an external authority for enforcement you ostracise yourself from your peer group. I learned that without an external authority you are helpless in the face of aggression. I learned that adults are poor judges who make no distinction between aggression, defense and retaliation. I learned that you can't prove who started it -- it doesn't matter who started it -- and that the victim wi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AvitarX ( 172628 )
          "Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying."

          It's funny you say that, because there was an interview on the BBC with a teacher who was complaining about it. It really sounded like he was upset with what happened to him and was pushing for the law.

          I believe he was filmed on a cell phone as a student pantsed him and that was put on youtube. The teacher did not seam to really care about the students at all, and only the other faculty.

        • But a large proportion of the teenage population doesn't yet have the maturity to deal with these things.

          Or at least that's what everyone thinks. Whether it is true or not is another question.

          I don't claim to have been a complete adult at the time, but when I was twelve, I knew the difference between right and wrong. More to the point I knew where the line was between messing around with someone and seriously offending them. Sure I would crack a joke or two, but if someone came in with a gigantic pimple on

        • Sorta off-topic, but methinks that Paul Graham misses the point by a mile, and just manages to add insult to injury.

          The fact is, a number of kids (and adults) suffer from Asperger Syndrome [wikipedia.org]. In a nutshell, it's missing the whole input circuitry for "body language". An aspie simply doesn't have the equipment to deal with those popularity games. He can go on for years talking about the wrong topics, or wearing the unfashionable clothes, or looking bored at the wrong time, and won't even know that he offended a
        • I must disagree here.

          With the increased capacities of adults, comes increased capabilities for bullying. The adult versions are called Slander & Libel. Can you brush those off so easily when they would affect your community reputation?

          Actually, these steps in the article go a ways towards *extending* the adult protections towards children. You don't like the smear campaign someone posted to YellowRag.com? Send a Cease & Desist letter. Little Joey doesn't like Big Bernard stealing his class photo and
        • Most of the people I would classify as nerds in my HS were not actually very smart (they thought they were though), spending more of their time playing games, writing fantasy stories, doodling pictures, than paying attention to the task at hand (my own addiction was hacking assembler code, but I did not do it to the exclusion of all else). Many of the smartest folks in the school were active in sports and such. Being well-rounded is important in any part of your life. If you dress like a slob, and don't

    • Re:Good on them. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gorshkov ( 932507 ) <AdmiralGorshkov@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @01:34AM (#18778671)

      As someone wiser than me has pointed out, having to "grow a thick skin" shouldn't be the price of living in an information-based society.
      Agreed. To illistrate the point: let's pretend that my daughter's class pools their money and takes out a full-page add in the local newspaper making insulting & deriding one of their classmates, a teacher, or the principal. Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel.

      Nobody? Didn't think so.

      Now - will somebody please tell me the difference between that full-page add, and a video posted to youtube?

      There *is* none. It's the same act.

      "Information-based society" is a cop-out. It's still libel, and it's about bloody time the law started CATCHING UP to the "information-based" society. I don't give a damn about the technology that is or is not involved - People still should be held responsible for their actions.
      • To illustrate my point: Let's pretend that a group of kids are insulting and deriding one of their classmates in public but off school property - they may congregate on the sidewalk or in a park, talking in loud voices. Whether or not the target is present is irrelevant. Show of hands please, from all of you who think that they should be punished by the school or some other public institution rather than by their parents.

        Now, will somebody please tell me the difference between a semi-public gathering among

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by daigu ( 111684 )

        Just for clarification, in places like the U.S., making insulting & deriding statements would be alright if the statements were true. There are also other circumstances - such as posting a video of inappropriate remarks made by said person in a public forum, such as a school assembly - were it might also be alright.

        The issue here doesn't seem to be about libel though. The mission of schools to educate may give it some reasonable justification for policing behavior. However, there does seem to be a fin

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by jamesh ( 87723 )

          Just for clarification, in places like the U.S., making insulting & deriding statements would be alright if the statements were true.

          There are a few exceptions to this... if there was a dark skinned gentlemen born to unmarried parents who suffered from a mild intellectual disability, and I were to publicly refer to him (eg in a newspaper, tv show, or other public media) as a "black retarded bastard", I'm not sure that I'd get away with it, even though all the terms I used in the label were technically '

          • Not everything in poor taste ought to be illegal; that you can't think of something you'd be prosecuted under probably means that you couldn't be prosecuted for anything -- shunned, maybe, or rebuked. I don't think there's anything illegal about that statement. If we try to outlaw people becoming offended, then we'll have to also outlaw the kind of free expression that let us develop into what we are today.

      • Add? (Score:2)

        by antdude ( 79039 )
        What is an add? Or is that a typo of ad?
      • Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel.

        I agree that students need to be protected from bullying. I'm not wild about laws like this. They will surely be abused. But, I can't think of a better answer. So I'll stand with you in protecting the inmates of the educational establishment.

        But teachers and the principal? The last thing the world needs is laws that shield those in authority from criticism.

        • But teachers and the principal? The last thing the world needs is laws that shield those in authority from criticism.
          Holy false dichotomy, Batman! Criticism is one thing - but if it's false and posted with malicious intent, it's libellous.

          Criticism: Principal X selects based on political affiliation, not ability.

          Libel: Princpal X is a crack addict [1].

          Not rocket science, is it?

          [1] if he isn't one.

  • Just what we need. Another bullshit "internet law".
    Does enyone else remember when we had that great internet completely void of government?
    I wish there was a way to bring that back.
    • No, I don't remember any time when the Internet was void of government. It was created by the government, then government interest waned for a while as commercial interests increased, but the government and government institutions (including public universities and their faculty) were still very much involved with it.

      So what period of time are you thinking of when government money wasn't at least a significant minority of the support for the net? When government supported researchers weren't a significant

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by brumby ( 93242 )

      Does enyone else remember when we had that great internet completely void of government?

      It was also devoid of the average person. A former co-worker used to say, before the September than never ended, "When the Internet becomes representative of the general population, I'm getting off."

  • My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @12:48AM (#18778441)
    Not sure about Canadian law, but here's my view on this matter.

    Can a school legally (or morally) get away with punishing a student for an action committed outside of school grounds if the action isn't illegal in the first place? Wouldn't it be better to seek legal action and then the school take action based on whether there is a conviction or not?

    Has anyone ever heard of a restraining order up there in Canada?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 )
      You know a common form of "cyber-bullying" is to use a camera phone to take a picture of a girl undressing before Gym/P.E. Class and then put it up on a website. The bullying is commited outside school but would effect someones in-school life majorly.

      Should the school go "not our problem, we say no phones allowed" or attempt to control this problem with a 2 pronged assault?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 )
        This sounds harsh, but I would suggest contacting the police and pressing charges. I don't care if someone is a juvenile, this type of stuff doesn't need to be tolerated and needs to be dealt with.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jez9999 ( 618189 )
          Doesn't sound harsh at all. Posting lude pics of someone on the net without their permission should definitely be punished by law, I agree.
          • If the judicial system cannot take action against someone, why should the school? Action as in suspension or expulsion.

            Posting lewd pictures of someone.
            Defaming someone by posting false information about them.
            Posting on one's message board that one is going to take a baseball bat to their head next time you see them.

            All of these I believe are legal issues, and if it is a legal issue, I see no reason why a school cannot get involved. In my opinion, I would prefer a school to take the following steps.

            Suspend

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rborek ( 563153 )
      Yes, you can. Even if the action isn't illegal per se, it could result in a hostile school environment or bring discredit to the school. The high school I went to made the controversial decision to suspend a student based on the fact that he was working as a male stripper (this was in Ontario, when there was an OAC year (basically Grade 13), and the student was 18), as it was a Catholic high school and would bring the school into disrepute. Suffice it to say the suspension caused even more attention to be d
      • What I'm concerned about is whether a student will receive due process for a "wrongful" action, rather than just for a moral action.

        Religious (and possibly private) schools, if outlined in their school rules, can impose restrictions based on immorality if they so choose. However, for other schools (e.g. public), if it is not illegal, and if it is not harmful to the learning process, no harm, no foul.

        In the event of bullying, sure, the parents and students need to sit down and work this issue out with someon
    • Well that is only one way of thinking about it. I'd prefer, if I was a parent, to have bullying cases handled in schools. While I don't dismiss bullying is a serious problem, I think it is better to have it handled by teachers and parents before dragging the police into it.

      What if your son was bullying another child? Chances are they have picked on other students before. Would you want the police called? Or would you prefer to be informed by teachers so you could discipline your child?

      I think it's safe to s
      • Bullying is a loosely defined term, kind of like terrorism. With creativity, it can pretty much be applied to anything.

        Focusing just on cyber-bullying, let us consider the following.

        If a student says that he wishes another student were dead, that he hates the other person, but doesn't "threaten" the student in any way, I don't think the school should act.

        However, if a student says he is going to beat another student up, saying that he is going to blow up his house or another violent act, then yes, the schoo

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
      Come on! You would like to drag the full weight of the legal system into every school dispute?

      School is a place where children go to learn. Children are not adults, they don't behave like adults and they don't have the same rights as adults. If they misbehave, the teacher has authority to punish them. Now, that authority does not always extend outside the school property but it's crazy to say that only criminal offences, or only actions serious enough to merit a civil lawsuit or restraining order, shoul
    • Fair enough, the schools and the staff have a 'duty of care' when pupils are onsite and/or within school hours. Beyond that it's not the schools problem. Additionally, over here in the UK there are significant legal bear traps for any school wishing to make it so. Namely the Human Rights Act.

  • Cyberbullying? GImme a break (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Op911 ( 593600 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @12:48AM (#18778443)
    This sounds like trouble. Who judges what is cyberbullying and what is just being a troll? Much as we may like to see people modded down for making assinine comments or denigrating statements to others, I hardly think that this would be enough cause for someone to be suspended or expelled from school. I see this as having huge potential for abuse, and having little to no potential to actually help make schools safer. This is stupid knee-jerk stuff.

    If people actually are documented attacking others on video or in a picture, then they deserve to be charged with assault and dealt with accordingly.

    A specific statement regarding "cyberbullying" potentially could trample om free speech.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RabidMonkey ( 30447 )
      Was listening to the CBC on the way home from work yesterday, and they had the minister of education on.

      She indicated that their plan for the cyber bullying is to gather students and ask them what THEY would consider to be cyber bullying. That will start the discussion about what constitutes cyber bullying.

      Having read about some cyber bullying, I'm glad to see that this action is being taken. There are cases of people getting 100's of text messages abusing them, of myspace/facebook/etc pages being overrun

  • A good start, but (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cassius Corodes ( 1084513 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @12:50AM (#18778447)
    While its good to see that something is being attempted, I fear that this like other anti-bullying schemes is more about the feel-good factor than really changing anything. Given the trouble teachers have in stamping out bullying in the school yard I don't think they will fare well on the Internet. Kids will be better off getting karate lessons.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous McCartneyf ( 1037584 )
      As long as no one claims, "Hey, he karate-chopped me up!"
      On the bright side, they're removing the zero-tolerance rules, so there's a chance of a fair hearing when these bullying charges are brought. Expulsions should be kept to the minimum needed for order, since they are directly linked with not getting a proper education.
  • These laws are good. What could be better is to make bullying based on sexual orientation more severely punishable.

    Many bullying victimes are gays, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Oftentimes schools do nothing to help the victim or punish the bully; much of this inaction is due to homophobia on the part of the school authorities.

    What's good about these kind of laws is that they force school administrators to ditch their own homophobia and go after the bullies and perhaps support the victims.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Entens ( 983281 )
      ...affirmative action = reverse discrimination.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zantolak ( 701554 )
      As well as the bullying of straight people accused of being gay.

  • Hint: Bullies use the rules as tools... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @12:56AM (#18778467)

    From the grade and high schools I've gone to, bullies are usually good at what they do, because punishments can't affect them for one reason or another. Besides, it's not that hard to figure out how to shield yourself from punishment, even while doing some of the most prohibited things in a school. You can shield yourself using threats, you can shield yourself by counter-accusing others, you can shield yourself using politics and parents, and most of all, you can obscure any evidence that would justify a weighty punishment.

    Harsh rules usually end up working rather well for bullies. Bullies can threaten other children with false accusations just as well as they always have with a plausible "he started it" claim in the case of a fight. And if this ends up anything like fights were handled at schools I've went to, that means the victims stay quiet, because they know they get punished at a much higher rate than any rule-savvy bully.

    This seems functionally more of a rule to punish technically-oriented non-bully kids who happen to anger faculty. I don't know of any kid who didn't constantly insult other kids, especially their friends, so technical kids are virtually guaranteed as targets here because of the visibility of online interactions for bullies or angry teachers to report. From living right on the Canadian border for my last high school years, I don't think Canada is any different.

    Ryan Fenton

  • Bastards (Score:2, Interesting)

    by L4m3rthanyou ( 1015323 )
    Why do schools feel this need to control every aspect of students' lives? What occurs outside of school grounds shouldn't be their problem. Besides, "cyberbullying" is a lot easier to ignore than physical bullying, and the playing field is a lot more level. I've always thought of the internet as a "revenge of the nerds" arena. The government is not your nanny, and school is not your daycare. Suck it up. If you're oversensitive to the point that you take stuff over the internet to heart, I think you have b
  • Outside of school?

    Another example of school administrator Small Man Syndrome.

  • bracing style holy war (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Secret Rabbit ( 914973 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @01:48AM (#18778737) Journal
    So, then under this law people could theoretically be suspended or expelled for being involved in arguing that K&R rocks (or sucks)?!?!? I mean seriously, just look at any mailing list/news group/web forum/etc. They're all full of people flaming each-other. But, if this law passes, and the people involved are students, they can be expelled for arguing /bracing style/.

    This is sickeningly politically correct and does NOTHING to stop this problem. Just like other "methods", the bully will be smart enough to move his/her efforts to another "solution space" that it's unlikely they'll get caught in. It's this sort of reactionary thinking that let this stuff get out of hand in the first place. Seriously, is suspending or expelling the student going to make them stop posting on MySpace? If anything, they'll have more time to do that!

    Basically, no law will stop bullying. No law will "pull in the reigns" of the bully. The solution is the same simple one that it always has been; the parents must actually parent there child. This alone will put this back to a healthy level if society actually does it.

    Furthermore, the schools have absolutely no right to start parenting children; which this basically amounts to. The schools rights begin and end during school hours. The schools rights also only apply to what happens on school property. Everything outside that is the jurisdiction of the parents, police and society in general.

    I'm sorry, but unlike others, I acknowledge the reality that bullying (_not_ the ridiculous hazing bullying that /is/ a problem) is about getting the ability to cope with adversity. It's a necessary life skill and those that don't develop it are going to have *serious* problems in life. Furthermore, when people learn to deal with bullying in appropriate ways (e.g. ignoring the bully), then that bully will have to change tactics (or most likely stop as the person in question isn't really a target anymore). The cycle continues until the bully "grows out of it".

    It must be noted that this will benefit both the victim AND the bully. The victim gets the ability to cope with adversity whereas the bully (hopefully) learns that violence and/or intimidation is not the answer (that is, if the victim was able to cope). Most likely this is a form of learning to deal with his/her own stress in a productive way rather than taking things out on someone else.

    Also, the fact of the matter is that bullying of this type was extremely rare until very very recently. Recently though, that ratio has started to flip; hyper bullying is getting far more common. So, to see what the problem is, we must look at what has changed in society recently. IMO the list would look something like:

    - parent treating the child as a burden. something that you have and then just have to "deal with"
    - kids being brainwashed to thinking that they're the best at everything when they're obviously not.
          "All I know is that no-one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything."
          - Assistant Grounds Keeper Skinner, Simpsons
    - getting away with treating there parents like crap (similar to the hyper bullying)
    - repercussion if the get caught are constant slaps on the wrist or disproportionally rough (i.e. basically no repercussions or so brutal it doesn't matter what you do, you'll get the same harsh punishment, so you might as well go all out).
    - teacher becoming apathetic and letting the student talk back, show massive disrespect in class, etc without repercussions.
    - teachers not challenging the students academically because god forbid the student will fail and effect there massive ego and get yelled at by the parent(s).
    - administration being disciplinarily impotent.
    - students having problems with realizing what is reality

    One could continue, but I think that the point has been made.

    But, I find it stunning that if we dialed back the clock one or two decades with regards to discipline and parenting, it would actually be some major leaps forward.

  • stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 )
    Stupidity in action.

    One - school has no business regulating how students behave outside. They're students, not slaves.

    Two - most bullies have a second favourite game: Gaming the system. The more rules you create, the more interesting (and rewarding) you make it.

    • forces in society to shape children. Teachers and principals are incredibly powerful.

      There are laws that require teachers to intervene if they feel students are being threatened. Such as suspecting child abuse, or severe depression...ect.

      Yet another difference in attitudes between Canada and the US perhaps.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dkf ( 304284 )

      One - school has no business regulating how students behave outside. They're students, not slaves.

      Within reason. If students are taking actions outside the school to try to bully students or staff, there's a need to act anyway (though it might be that the right approach for things done outside the school that are bullying involves the police sooner; if students insist on acting like stupid adults, they run the risk of being punished like stupid adults too). On the other hand, many schools may well go to far

  • Ok, I know I'll get flamed badly for this, but why the hell do you even HAVE bullies in the first place ?
    Personally, I am a product of a communist regime education system that kept going almost unchanged for almost a decade after "the fall of communism" (winter 1989) in Romania, and to be honest, I *NEVER* actually met a real-life school bully, and none of my (rough) age group have either. Only recently (about 1995 and later) this whole "bully" issue actually started surfacing.

    I can't quite put a finger on
    • "In Communist Romania, internet bullies you!"
      • Well, to be honest, more of a "In communist education, teacher bullies you"... and that creates a sort of bonding between classmates and even schoolmates that you can otherwise only see in the armed forces.
        Well, not quite as strong, but the underlying principle is the same: give the kids a "common enemy", one they hate, fear and also respect at the same time, one they are powerless against, so that they might come together in (passive) resistance against.

  • Interesting. Why now? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @05:37AM (#18779735)
    Anyone here that has NOT been the target of the school bully? Reaction? Zero. "Deal with it", at best.

    Why all of a sudden a reaction? Because it's no longer brawns but technology that does the "beating"? Because it no longer matters whether you have the necessary physical attributes but only whether you have the necessary equipment? What changed? That it's a teacher now who gets his virtual nuts kicked?

    Personally I'm all for limiting a bully's 'freedom'. Though maybe we should first of all find out what makes a person a bully. I kinda doubt that anyone gets up in the morning and suddenly gets the bright idea to make someone else's life miserable.
    • As a candian who's been out of high school for about 7 years I can say that the culture is quite different in Canada. While there are "jocks" and "nerds" (as well as countless other labels) the "jocks" aren't as praised as they seem to be in American culture.

      From what I remember in school, they've always had "zero tolerance" for violence and bullying. While I disagree with this proposed policy (due to free speech concerns as well as the fact that I think it's none of their business what students do outside
  • no cyberbullying allowed eh? i guess that 7 on 1 zerg is out of the question now.. you'll be expelled from school for it!
  • Does Ontario mention how it is going to determine who the cyber bully is, in order to mete out this punishment? Are they going to magically determine that profile "jimmyisstupid444" is really little Johnny Smith, with the social networking sites and YouTube bending over backwards to give out confidential user information upon request of an Ontario teacher? Somehow I don't think so.

    Kids aren't stupid, and they're not technical morons either. They know how to set up yet another throw away HotMail address an
  • Got to love the socialist country of Canada.

    Who will pay for the "monitoring?" Will it now be a new assignment of teachers to go onto MySpace pages to attempt to find bullying?

    And what would stop a rule-savvy bully from producing "counter evidence" to show that they were bullied first? Or that the principal (i.e., a brand new MySpace account registered through a gmail address in the principal's name) was not responsiblefor the bullying?

    This is definitely a "feel good" law that will be loosely enforc

  • The problem with this law isn't it's intent, or even it's procedures. But it's using the wrong system to do the right job.

    In the adult world, we have courts to arbitrate situations of libel and slander. Children aren't really held to the same standards as adults unless the circumstances are exceptional, and realistically, they shouldn't be. The courts are an inappropriate system to control this behaviour.

    On the other hand, schools are institutions designed (ostensibly at least) for education. They are n
  • I really don't understand why this is a problem. Something like this seems like yet another overprotective law designed to insulate kids from the real world. I'm sure a sizable portion of the Slashdot community got bullied in school (I know I did.) Instead of demanding laws to protect me, I either fought back or ignored it, depending on severity. Now it's text messages or a stupid YouTube video posted about someone that is causing all the furur...how crazy is that?

    It really seems like everyone wants to shel

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      yes, thats right, shut the hell up and take it, bitch!

      Is that really the best way? I think not. I would love to have had a reasonable and open way to have the bully punished.

      the real world? I have been in the real world for 25 years, and I ahve yet someone to bully me with violence.

      Yes, sometime the 'think of the children' is waved around too nuch, but not in this case.
      Children do need protection. Yes they should be allowed to make mistakes, but getting the crap beat out of you in school isn't a mistake, it

Slashdot Top Deals

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Close