Monday, July 18, 2016

"Cyberbullying" -- The Path to School Tyranny


"Any society that would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserves neither and lose both."

-- Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)



Schools demand control over students' social media postings in order to prevent "cyberbullying" - students bullying others online. The problem of "cyberbullying" is certainly a very real problem - and a symptom of a larger cultural collapse in public schools. However, the problem of "cyberbullying" (and other forms of bullying) was largely created by the public schools through the evolutionist curriculum (read more about evolution here) and other factors. How can we expect the same people who created a problem to ride in on a white horse and solve it?

Legitimate "cyberbullying" is already forbidden by every major social network in operation. Why do we need the government to censor online communications to stop "cyberbullying?" For example, this is from Facebook's official policies:

"Facebook offers these tools to help you deal with bullying and harassment. Depending on the seriousness of the situation:

Unfriend the person. Only your Facebook friends can contact you through Facebook chat or post on your Timeline.

Block the person. This will prevent the person from adding you as a friend and viewing things you share on your Timeline.

Report the person or any abusive things they post."

 It is very likely that individuals who wish to use the power of the state to curb "cyberbullying" actually have more nefarious motives in mind. For example, a Microsoft official recently proposed a plan which would force individuals who wish to use the internet to apply for government "internet licenses" in order to curb online "extremism" - a code word commonly used among political elites to describe any dissenting opinions such as conservative, constitutionalist, or anti-globalist sentiment. 


"Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses—in other words government permission to use the web, Infowars reported on February 1, 2010.



Governments love to use licenses, fees, taxes, penalties, surcharges, etc, to control the masses, and the United Nations, a world government organization, is no exception. “If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance,” said Mundie, making an argument for an internet licensing system.



The DMV would not issue a license to a person deemed by the state to be dangerous on the highway and, likewise, a licensing bureau established by the UN will not issue one to a person determined to be an “extremist” by its member states."




Schools recently have been involved in increasing levels of censorship of dissenting political opinion - such as support for Donald Trump or opposition to same-gender "marriage" or the rest of the "LGBT" agenda. 

In May 2015, Booker T. Washington High School in Oklahoma suspended eleven students -- over their social media speech. The school had posted a propaganda poster which promoted homosexuality and transgenderism, so one student decided to vandalize the poster and post a video, captured by another student, on social media. Nine other students liked the post, and were suspended along with the two perpetrators. 

Of course, the person who "vandalized" the poster should be given a fair punishment (not necessarily a suspension) for his actions, but the act that should be punished is the "vandalism", not the social media post (which is constitutionally protected free speech.)

But regardless of what should happen to the actual perpetrator, and even regardless of what should happen to his friend who recorded the incident, when a school takes it upon themselves to suspend people for simply "liking" a post on social media, the school takes a giant leap outside of their proper realm of authority and into "thought-police mode."

The idea that a school can punish individuals for, on their own personal computers, clicking "like" on a post that disagrees with the administrators' political beliefs, is simply totalitarianism.

But as we have explained recently, in a May 9 post, schools have no legal right to restrict social media posts made outside of school. Schools often trample on students' rights and restrict social media anyway, but that is becoming more and more risky because courts have grown more favorable towards student lawsuits alleging that their free speech is violated by school restrictions on social media posts. The legal trend may be reversing, however, because of Barack Obama's court appointees, who are more favorable towards government censorship of unpopular speech.

Another occasion of tyrannical school censorship of online activity in the name of "bullying prevention" occurred in Ohio in April of this year when an Ohio Ku Klux Klan group made up of students from a high school distributed a video which contained racial slurs and threats, combined with a visual of a member pumping a shotgun. A student featured the video on his social media profile to support his view that racism still existed at his school. The school decided to suspend him for distributing the video, even though he clearly expressed opposition to the messages in the video. 

The people who created the video committed a crime by claiming that they were going "n***** hunting", especially while brandishing a weapon. They should be prosecuted and convicted of "inducing panic", which is defined as "threatening to commit a crime of violence."

However, by suspending this individual, who was only trying to EXPOSE this racist group and support his view that racism still existed at this school, the school clearly showed that their motive was to protect their "reputation" as an "inclusive school," rather than suppressing the violent, hateful speech contained in the KKK video. 

These are just two occasions where schools used their alleged responsibility to prevent so-called "cyberbullying" to censor constitutionally protected speech and investigative journalism. While "cyberbullying" is definitely not a positive thing, allowing public schools to censor student online speech under the guise of preventing "cyberbullying" will create more problems than it can solve. 


5 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Advertising is not permitted in the comment section.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Advertising is not permitted in the comment section.

      Delete

Please be polite and make sure your comment is related to the topic of this post!