According to this, corporal punishment is already legal in 20 states, and bullying still takes place within those states.

just because it is legal, it doesn't mean the teachers will do so, they will still have a negative response from the comminity for hitting the kid :/

According to the article, parents widely approve of domestic corporal punishment. I can't see them objecting to it in school if a waiver is signed(which has been standard policy for as long as this type of punishment has existed).

When my brother was in High School, he got a detention from a teacher because my brother said 'yes, sir' and 'no, sir'. The teacher knew my brother was interested in the military and tried at every turn to punish him for it. :/ There are just too many teachers out there that are too soft in regards to what they do.

One of our teachers used to be run from the room crying on a monthly basis because of one girl's attitude.

.....

wow, that teacher who cried should have never been a teacher >.>

Freedom of speech is not carte blanche to say whatever you want. Libel laws are a prime example; another is the reason you can't shout fire in a theater. Freedom of speech is guaranteed when it won't put another person in danger, and bullying via "freedom" of speech, also known as verbal abuse or verbal assault, is quite not legal.

Verbal abuse does not put someone in physical danger. It is morally wrong to do so, but it is legally in the clear, as far as I'm concerned. Things like the libel laws are a travesty on our rights, and if the text of the first amendment can be stretched that far, where does it stop?

So if someone takes out a two-page spread in the New York Times with a picture of you and the headline, "Drew DeVault kills kittens for fun", you believe that you should have no legal recourse whatsoever?

No, they should have no legal recourse. I might choose to discount it in my own public rebuttal (I love kittens). It would be so obviously false that I wouldn't mind - and even if it was more subtly false, I could still refute it and present a case myself. It isn't up to the government to restrict someone's right to publish those things.

What if it causes you serious troubles, even if indirect? For example, over here a teacher lost her job because a student leaked info about how she made porn movies during her past time, even if it had no influence on her job at all. Had the student shut up, she would still have her job today.

Also if someone was to tell that you molested kids in parks in the newspaper, it could prompt some people who are totally against this to beat you down when they see you.

Then I'd deal with the consequences and settle it with the paper. People should be allowed to print what they like. If the teacher had been upfront about her past career, there probably wouldn't have been problems. If someone said I was a child molester, I'd be more careful until it was refuted.

This is where you're wrong. Verbal abuse causes psychological damage. This is usually inconsequential at first, but when that damage accumulates(such as when being bullied repeatedly), it begins to manifest physically. This translates into increased stress, depression, and in the worst cases even suicide.

The topic of freedom of speech is something that is always fiercely debated. Many remember last year with the protests at military funerals where people carried signs that read "thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags". It pained me very much to see these demonstrations especially with the amount of respect I give to our armed forces and how one day I would like to serve for my country. Even still I knew that their hurtful remarks were protected by the bill of rights and even though I was morally opposed to their actions I would've ruled in their favor of them if the decision was up to me.

However when we get to the topic of bullying, this is a much more serious offense. When I was a young child I was told "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." That is not true in many circumstances. In many cases I'd rather be physically assaulted than emotionally tormented because with the former I could deal with my attackers much better. Bullying is far more than just words, it is an emotional ATTACK that is not defended under the bill of rights. When interpreting our constitution I often look to how our founding fathers envisioned it. Freedom of speech was designed to allow people to express their views and beliefs without harassment from the government not to allow them to attack innocent people. So in this case I fully support the law and wish that many other states would take a similar stance.

SirCmpwn, with all this talk, you almost sound like you were a bully in school

I'm with z80man; words can be very hurtful, directly and indirectly. That's not to say there should be a law against angry pedestrians cursing each other out on the street, because I don't think there should. I support libel and such laws, though, as long as they aren't applied unevenly, and I think some kind of stricter measures against bullying would go a long way towards making many a bright young child's youth more pleasant.

On the topic of bullying, I do agree it needs to be more heavily punished and forbidden, at least until junior high.

Bullying can push a kid to do something he'll really regret, and he might do something to put himself and others at risk.

Bullycide is not the only possible outcome of middle school torment. Some kids are cruel, and at one point, after being bullied mercilessly, I hit my 6th grade tormentor (I was in 5th at the time) across the face hard with a plastic lunch tray. He fell and hit his head on the table, concussed and very nearly killed, he was rushed to the emergency room.

This was a very emotional time for me and the others involved. There was an investigation into the incident and everyone involved was suspended, me, the 6th graders who ganged up on me, and even a teacher who looked the other way during a recess period. If let to fester and rot, the situation can become very volatile.

Nobody was expelled, but half the kids involved in the incident left that year, and the teacher resigned at the end of the semester. I was taken to counseling for 'anger issues' (probably somewhat deserved) and had to retake the 5th grade because I missed too much of it. I did not return to that school either.

That kid also recovered, but I only saw him once after that and there was no way either of us were going to talk, he was in quite a bit of trouble too.

The point is, anti-bully really needs to be enforced to prevent incidents like this. Suicide is one thing, but I could've killed that kid. An overreaction from months of putting up with stuff. If these laws succeed in preventing even one death or an incident like this, then I believe it was worth it.

I dont think it was on over reaction, Joe, just a reaction gone wrong. If I was in your place I would not stop to think about hitting the kid as hard as possible. Back when bullying was a real problem for me, I would have, at anyrate...

Extreme bullying during an extended period of time (such as an entire class bullying you during an entire year) can not only cause things like JoeYoung described, but also can leave lifelong scars on the person. It will change the person completely, often for the worse, unlike regular bullying, which, usually, will cause the person to grow a ticker skin without any other damage.

This isn't the case at all. In fact, I can safely say that I'm pretty sure I've suffered the worst childhood out of most of the members here, largely in part to bullying.

To address other points, I am very, very protective of my rights. Banning insults is a serious breach of the first amendment, and an absolute outrage. How could that possibly be worded so it prevents abuse? And if insults were regulated, it isn't a long shot to start regulating other forms of speech. How long would it be until anti-government talk was a crime?

SirCmpwn, you are wrong to apply those rights so strictly to minors in school. I wholeheartedly support our first amendment rights but children have not yet learned when to use or abuse them.

Until an appropriate age of accountability, schools are allowed and are expected to maintain an acceptable school environment, punishing those that disrupt that environment and teaching kids the difference between insults and what is considered bullying.

You have blown it way out of proportion. While some schools are guilty of the same by trying to enforce their policies on conversation outside their grounds, it's never done for the stifling of free speech but the protection of students, some of which who may not have developed a tolerance yet for bullying.