King Hazza again:

<<And someone killing themselves because of what text-based comments someone made electronically? Please- he would have had a LOT more problems than that alone.>>

This isn't for you to say, KH. Reports of the recent work-place bullying case in Melbourne, in which four men were found guilty of bullying to the extent of hounding a young woman to take her own life, did not include any references to her having a 'LOT more problems than that alone'.

The laws of defamation, slander, libel apply to the internet. Their enforcement may be more difficult, but it would surprise many people just how easy it is to identify the average anonymous poster. The chief problem will always be that ordinary people who are being maligned, abused and ridiculed mostly lack the wherewithal to pursue litigation; this also applies to print publications or even comments made in the workplace.

<<It is more worthwhile that the internet is a free information medium by adults and mature people of expressing thought, than to be treated as another medium of media, and thus must be regulated and dumbed down.>>

This is very convoluted, and doesn't make sense: the internet has been well and truly 'dumbed down' despite the absence of regulation. You already implied as much in your first post, quoted in my previous one.

Rapscallion:". Where there's a grain of truth it's the bleeding obvious."

Arbeit Macht Frei, Mein Herr.

The bleeding obviosity of any given statement depends entirely on whether one is required to "arbeit" to "macht frei"....

Rapscallion: I agree.

There are so many people trying to justify the basest of human behaviour.

I note the posturing of those who champion bullies - including the attempt to squeeze a bit of german into the convo. I think it's an attempt to infer that people who oppose nasty behaviour are nazi like. I'd say that took a bit of work to find a place to squeeze in something that doesn't really fit. Nevermind.

Whether or not poor behaviour can be legislated doesn't matter much; it seems to me more important to at least uphold an ideal of desirable behaviour. Informal social expectations can have great impact.

It's also just plain silly to say that online abuses against someone are less harmful than playground bullying. For one thing it assumes that bullying is the province of school kids - which it isn't. It also assumes that it's one sort of bullying versus another sort - whereas quite often they occur together.

I'm really sick of all the piggish bravado that so many people seem to admire. When did callous indifference become fashionable?

In other forms of bullying the victim is not always present nor does attempting to ignore it take away all the consequences.

Bulling away from the internet can also be about trying to harm someones reputation, it can be about pressuring friends to not be friends anymore. Bullying is not just physical intimidation.

In most cases I suspect that the non-physical forms of bullying can be far worst, they can be harder to prove, they are harder to avoid, they often involve more people and a fast set of legs does not help to avoid them.

R0bert

Agree with both Pynchme and R0bert

What some people don't get is that the child ridiculed on the internet, then has to turn up at school knowing that everyone, friends and foes alike, have read the taunts and comments. Often friends will turn away in order not to be bullied themselves, leaving the victim further isolated.

Suggest that those dismissive of bullying do some research:

http://www.kidshelp.com.au/teens/get-info/hot-topics/cyber-bullying.php

<<< Bullying vs other types of conflict

It's important to remember that not all fighting or arguing is bullying. It is normal to have times when you have conflict and arguments with people. So, it is important to learn how to deal with conflict. Bullying is different to having an argument or a fight.

There are four things that can help you identify bullying over a normal argument between friends. Bullying is targeted and persistent behaviour that is intended to:

* demean
* intimidate
* embarrass, or
* harass

Bullying also involves:

* An imbalance of power - for example a group ganging up on an individual or someone much more confident picking on someone who is less confident
* Repeatedly picking on someone over the phone, email, website or online forum (for example, sending messages to the same person over and over) >>>

Pynchme:"I think it's an attempt to infer that people who oppose nasty behaviour are nazi like."

LOL. Let me explain...

It was "bleeding obvious" to many Germans that the Jews were of inferior stock. It was not obvious to the millions of Jews who were required to "Arbeit" (work) to "macht Frei" (be set free). After the war, it was no longer "bleeding obvious" to anyone but the deranged.

As I said and as you make clear with every utterance, the bleeding obviosity of any statement depends on which side you think you're on.

R0bert:"In most cases I suspect that the non-physical forms of bullying can be far worst, they can be harder to prove, they are harder to avoid, they often involve more people and a fast set of legs does not help to avoid them."

I'd agree with that to a large degree. Social isolation in particular can be very destructive. I've mentioned the response of my boy's school to a complaint of such bullying, which was basically "meh, that's kids, what can we do about it?", as compared to a massive over-response to a minor incident involving one student pulling my daughter's hair.

I attended a Anglican Church Grammar School in Brisbane as a boarder for 5 years, where bullying and violence were rife. It was rare for violent incidents to involve more than one perpetrator or to last for very long, but episodes of psychological bullying could often involve an entire dorm going out of their way to curry favour with some dominant kid or other by making some other kid's life miserable for weeks on end.

I've gone out of my way to avoid having anything to do with that school ever since. It was a toxic environment.