State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-UW Womens' Studies Dept.) has an op-ed in today's Seattle Times, calling for, among other things, government censorship of web sites: "Dealing with cyberbullies"
Cyberbullying — the use of e-mail, instant messaging, Web sites, camera phones and the like to torment someone — is on the rise. And with more children using this technology — and at an increasingly younger age — the problem shows no signs of abating.Kohl-Welles' definition of "cyberbullying" includes posting caustic messages on a website. That could well include my blog entries in the series "Dumb E-mails from Elected Officials". And it would have to include some of the dumb e-mails written by elected officials. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 19, 2006 09:27 AM | Email ThisSenate Bill 5849 would add electronic acts to the definition of bullying, intimidation and harassment; under current law, school districts are required to have policies prohibiting such behavior toward a student.
This is a major push of the gender feminist police state. There is a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that was just reauthorized ($5 billion to feminist groups to conduct their war on boys, men, and fathers) that outlaws making statements over the internet that others find annoying.
There are two objectives on the part of gender feminists like Kohl-Welles. The first is to prevent people from fighting back against the feminist police state she and her sisterhood are working hard to create. They realize that free speech is their worst enemy.
Included in this police state is the fundamental change in the way our legal system works so that men and fathers are always considered guilty until proven innocent; in other words, assymmetrical Nepoleonic law.
The second aspect of this is to fire up the battle against teenage boys. VAWA includes a provision about date rape. Stopping date rape sounds good to everyone, until you see the way these extremists want to implement it. Again, Nepoleonic law - your teenage boy will be considered guilty as soon as an accusation is made against him. Good luck proving his innocence - that involves proving a negative, which is nearly impossible.
There will be plenty of re-education programs in your local public school, designed to deprogram the so-called patriarchy out your boy. He will be told he has been socialized to be a rapist. Girls will have their fear heightened by these programs and it would not be outlandish to think that it will become a fad to make rape accusations.
Gender feminists like Kohl-Welles want to take away free speech in order to take away the ability of people to criticize what they are doing to our Constitutional system. For them, Constitution=Patriarchy.
It's about time Republicans wake up to what is happening here and stop going along with it so full of self-congratulations. This all sounds crazy, but if you look deeper at what is happening here, reality is stranger than any fiction I could come up with.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on January 19, 2006 09:56 AMAnd for the record, most cyberbullying is done by girls against girls. We had a national expert at our middle school last year to talk to all the students about the different types of bullying (because boys and girls have different tactics, sadly, the girls seem worse than the boys) and cyberbullying is the tactic of choice mostly by girls.
Posted by: westello on January 19, 2006 10:04 AMI don't have any doubt that girls are as capable as boys of cyber-bullying. People like Kohler-Welles and the rest of the UW Women Studies faculty not only doubt it, they believe that if girls every do bully, it's because they are oppressed by the so-called patriarchy.
The only "please" I have for you is please do some research into the ideology of that tax supported department in UW. Then, feel free to criticize all you want.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on January 19, 2006 10:57 AMRespect and civil behaviour should occur in schools. But as far as having appropriate language being mandated by law, I think these laws violate the first amendment.
Speech is being squelched - because laws are being passed calling it "hate speech", or speech that "offends" someone, or makes them "feel uncomfortable". However, the application of these restrictions seem to be targeted towards those on the convervative side.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 19, 2006 11:23 AMMake a bet? Ever been accused of sexual harassment or racial discrimination? How about those folks who were incarcerated on made-up evidence in the Wenatchee sexual abuse witch trials. In today's world you have to be ultra careful, because the accusation is as bad as a conviction-- you ARE presumed guilty and treated that way.
So don't think that this law couldn't take us down that road again. There are folks in Wenatchee who the courts cleared who are still trying to dig their way out....
Posted by: Red on January 19, 2006 11:36 AMTry this
1. Why are you stalking me (in an e-mail to another girl)?
2. If I am stalking you, why are you sending me these e-mails?
or
2. If we are such good friends, why are you nice to me when we are alone but when you are with Jodie, you treat me bad? True friends are always friends and cannot turn it on and off.
Puberty aged girls. And this happened to my other girls six years ago. They are brutal. We have to pick up the pieces (our little girl who was no. 1) at least once a week.
Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2006 11:37 AMYour comments are right on the money. I have exhaustive personal experience with the concerns you are talking about.
There are many women in the Republican party that agree with us about this and the tide is turning . . . but very slowly because most of us don't have a way to directly address the problem, and many of us don't think we are affected by it. Have you seen Hillary Dillary's attacks against the administration about Iran today?
I take this seriously as well, but what can we do except continue to shine a light on the issues? Stefan proves that many people care about attacking perceived bigotry (figurative indignities) than real ones. Most people also seem to believe that the realities displayed in your comments about liberal feminist intentions (even otherwise conservative people) are not vital concerns. I do.
Who knows, maybe Kohl-Welles will get run over by a bus, but I doubt we'll have such luck.
At any rate, if she read these words and had her way, I agree with you that I would no longer have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Thanks for you comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 19, 2006 02:38 PMLiberal Democrats sponsoring bills to "censor" freedom of speech.....? I told you they were "Big Brother" AND "Nanny communists"!
Posted by: Deborah on January 19, 2006 06:50 PMAmused, you'd qualify for a cyberbully except the kids in school probably all just ignored you anyway.
I am offended by what folks say hourly. Now, do I go calling the cops? No, I turn it off, go away, or whatever so I don't have to hear it.
Not guilty when accused? Puhleese. I got canned from a job, because a young girl (not a woman, and certainly not a lady) was offended when I compared her acting career she was studying for to Tom Leykis, who is an excellent actor.
Two hours later, I was gone, because "some of the women were uncomfortable with what I said". The same women, BTW, who played repeatedly another co-workers crude sexual invite to a woman, left on her voice mail. That made ME unconfortable, but I guess it depends on who is speaking the "hate", eh?
Not guilty until proven innocent, on reflection, more like guilty because someone doesn't like what you say, no trial, no hearing.
The Geezer
Posted by: The Geezer on January 19, 2006 09:29 PMSo, what are you the school mascot? Or maybe just the neighborhood perv, lurking around sniffing the bicycle seats....
The way I figure it, you should be appreciative that Amused presumed more of you than I did!
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 19, 2006 09:38 PMI'm sorry that I "flew off the handle" and gave you credit for being "educated" enough to be a teacher . . . moron. I now realize the error of my ways.
This means that you are fu@king stupid enough to hold the opinions of a typical Seattle school teacher (a robotic liberal moron) without having been formally indoctrinated out of any common sense. Your self trained stupidity IS an achievement (that you know of).
Salute!!
Thanks for the info.