News & Current Events

the case only focuses on california but yeah i know wat u mean

Kell wrote:

the case only focuses on california but yeah i know wat u mean

Close. I want the US Supreme Court to make the ruling so it has the highest level of stare decisis.

Ecii wrote:

Kell wrote:

the case only focuses on california but yeah i know wat u mean

Close. I want the US Supreme Court to make the ruling so it has the highest level of stare decisis.

You speak legalese?
You know that means that it wouldn't necessarily go that high, since it was only a state law being challenged, there's no reason why federal jurisdiction would become a part of the case.

painservedcold wrote:

Ecii wrote:

Kell wrote:

the case only focuses on california but yeah i know wat u mean

Close. I want the US Supreme Court to make the ruling so it has the highest level of stare decisis.

You speak legalese?
You know that means that it wouldn't necessarily go that high, since it was only a state law being challenged, there's no reason why federal jurisdiction would become a part of the case.

Yes I do know a bit about law
I know the case won't go that high. Even if they did petition for the writ, I doubt the US Supreme Court would take the case.

SCOTUS has enough going on, doesn't really need to take this eh? Betcha the Supremes are thanking their lucky stars the 9th circuit dealt with it instead of passing them the bomb, especially since they'll have to deal with DOMA soon.

painservedcold wrote:

SCOTUS has enough going on, doesn't really need to take this eh? Betcha the Supremes are thanking their lucky stars the 9th circuit dealt with it instead of passing them the bomb, especially since they'll have to deal with DOMA soon.

The US Supreme Court doesn't have to deal with anything, I don't understand your Canadian point.

Ecii wrote:

painservedcold wrote:

SCOTUS has enough going on, doesn't really need to take this eh? Betcha the Supremes are thanking their lucky stars the 9th circuit dealt with it instead of passing them the bomb, especially since they'll have to deal with DOMA soon.

The US Supreme Court doesn't have to deal with anything, I don't understand your Canadian point.

I'm aware of the fact that SCOTUS doesn't have to take on cases. Our Supreme Court works the same way sweetie. Only reason they're dealing with DOMA is because the MA attorney general is suing the government.

i personally wouldnt want the supreme court to take up the case. its too risky. if i wanted gay marriage to become nationwide at the federal level, i would only support it being ADDED to the constitution by 3/4 of the states' consent. its up to the states' themselves, not the federal government. in my opinion

aww :'(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/diane-aulger-mom-induces-labor_n_1272938.html?ref=mostpopular#s691561

When are we going to start calling this what it is, manslaughter. There's no goddamn responsibility being taken for any of these deaths. You really think that kids give a shit if they get put in detention or suspended for a few days, if they're already harassing people to the point where they kill themselves? Of course they don't. So up the stakes and put down a real penalty that'll stick and MAKE people smarten up. Make it an offence, make the fucking judicial system get involved, the stakes are already that high for the victims, may as well play fair and make the punishment fit the crime.

A child is dead, and that child is dead because his peers couldn't find it within themselves to treat one another with something resembling human dignity. Adults committing the same acts as these bullies face criminal and civil liability for their actions; they know it's wrong and they do it anyways. I see no difference here whatsoever. The bullies know what they're doing is wrong, and the do it anyways simply because they can and understand that any penalties handed out don't matter to them.

Treat them the same damn way we'd treat any other harasser, with a criminal sentence. I'm too damn tired of this shit.

i agree that the stakes should be upped but i dont think i would go for charging them with manslaughter or anything like that. every person's "breaking point" is different & it'd be too complicated between cases to say "well this kid was punched, kicked, spit on, beaten up on but he DIDNT kill himself, while this kid just received hateful text messages & DID kill himself." i mean, dont both bullies deserve to be punished? and if so, then how do u equally punish people for 2 different acts? i dont think u can.

but i DO agree that the stakes should be upped. if schools really wanna enforce their zero-tolerance rules which so many claim to have but dont follow through, then bullying, when it reaches a certain degree, should be met with something like expulsion immediately.

I can't agree in this case. The harassment, and that IS what we're talking about here, kept up even after the victim left the physical vicinity of his abusers. These people attacked him through his phone, through facebook and in person, and created a page just to devote themselves to hatred. It clearly shows systemic bias with intent to do harm and to promote hate. That stops being "boys being boys" and completely crosses the line into the illegal. If it was my kid, and it wouldn't be because I'd have put this one through the judicial meat grinder a long time ago, but if it was my kid the kids on that facebook page would very quickly be having a meeting with a judge and counsel.

well obviously for this kid, those kids who bullied him & set up the fb page & sent him those messages, they should all be punished. the overall general problem though is where DO u draw the line between "boys being boys" & legitimate abuse? all forms of bullying are wrong, duh. but if u punish all those forms, then u get people blaming those above them on the ladder. "yeah but he was snickering at him" "yeah but he smacked his books out of his hands" "yeah but he called him a faggot to his face" "yeah but he made the facebook page" "yeah but he sent him the death threats" & thats where it gets so complicated. u cant punish everyone, its not practical. why whould the person who just quietly snickered at him in the hallway get the same punishment as the ones who sent him death threats


theres a bit of a misconception that if ur against anti-gay bullying legislation, then ur a homophobe & u dont care about gay people. and i think with some people thats true. but i think what the actual, practical problem is, where do u draw the line? how do u separate those who did the most from those who did the least?

for this example, if i was the principal of that school, id find out every single person who sent him death threats & i would not only expel them, but i would see to it that they would be prosecuted. cuz death threats are legitimately illegal. for the kids who set up the facebook page & had anything to do with its promotion or support, id expel them all.

You're right of course, in that it's an incredibly difficult process to determine what crosses lines and what does not. I wouldn't mind using the same legal standard used for adult victims of harassment and abuse, and applying it to youth bullying. We don't, for example, prosecute adults who make comments to each other, unless they're made with intent to provoke violence (the famous "fighting words" clause, for those schooled in US Law). We do, however, prosecute things like stalking or cyber attacks in the adult world, so why not have the same thing apply to youths? That would kind of solve the problem of what's too far, but applying it would be tricky since youths do oftentimes view things differently than adults. I just think that's already an objective standard of criminal liability we have, so it makes sense to use it.

also, adults as a whole (generally) all know that bullying is wrong. so i think it makes sense to severely punish adults for that kind of thing because they should know better

but to punish kids the same way as adults i think would be too harsh. not supporting ignorance, but kids usually dont see the consequences of their actions. plus, again, where do u draw the line between maturity? every grade is so close to the grade above & below it that its not fair to draw a line at say, just high school. because a freshman in the first few months of high school is virtually the same as a middle schooler in the last few months.

its tricky. and THATS what the typical problem is when it comes to anit-gay bullying laws. not that all those politicians are necessarily homophobic, but that whats been put on the tabe in front of them, they just see as being too impractical or difficult to actually carry out

:/

I would say getting hauled into court is a fairly significant consequence.

depending on what u do, yeah

north carolina already didnt allow gay marriage. but now it's illegal in the state constitution
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/amendment-one-north-carolina_n_1501308.html

This reinforces an ugly stereotype about what kind of intolerance exists in the South, and indeed everywhere in the 'developed' world.

obama supports gay marriage!!!!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html?ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices&ref=gay-voices

I graduated today, with my bachelor of arts in political science.

Wow! Congrats Trev!! I hope you are celebrating aptly too! Have a drink on me

ems wrote:

Wow! Congrats Trev!! I hope you are celebrating aptly too! Have a drink on me

Thanks, but no drinking for me for a long time. God, that party was amazing but I never wanna feel like that again.