Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by bandit - Albuquerque on September 12, 2011:

I must disagree with Mr Cohen about his reaction to the photographer, specifically assuming the 4 girls were "victims". They deliberately wrote nasty things on Facebook about another girl.

The understanding I have is that the target girl would see the page, or her friends would and tell her. The point being: the target would get the messages.

I, as a parent, would want to know if my child (whom I am legally responsible for) was engaged in bullying. I think what the photographer did was quite appropriate, and provided proof of her actions and decisions.

Very simple rule: bullying in any form is unacceptable. This includes ZT by adults.

---

I'll be happy to post any responses by Alexander, but they'll necessarily be delayed. In the meantime, I believe his point is that the bullies victimized one person, and the bullies are being "victimized" by the photographer with her vigilante action. -rc

AC replies: "I, as a parent, would want to know" -- exactly. You as a parent would want to know, presumably so that you could do something about it. Now, perhaps you'd simply sit down and have a conversation, which would be good. But many parents would do a lot more than that: They would punish their children in ways that violate their rights and, potentially, threaten everything they value. So a parent's desire to know can't be assumed to be benign unless you know the parent.

Posted by Diana, Massachusetts on September 12, 2011:

Just a quick question for Alexander...why shouldn't those kid's parents have been made aware of what their children were posting online? If it was on a public Facebook page, it doesn't seem the kids had any fear of everyone reading their comments. So the photographer wasn't exposing them to risk; they had already done that for themselves.

And, as an example of parents not having justification to intervene, you really believe that a 14 or 15 year old girl sending naked pictures to her boyfriend really appreciates the potential consequences of her actions?

I believe kids have rights but it seems you are saying parents have no right to interfere with their children's decisions, even if they are detrimental.

---

Alexander replies: You do have a good point that if the photographer could see the comments, so could the parents, although taking a screenshot foreclosed the possibility of deleting the comments on recognition of the risk. That said, the photographer clearly raised the odds that the parents would see the comments.

As for the teenager sending nude pictures, the biggest risks involved in that come from the obscene way the child-porn laws -- which are supposedly constitutional because they protect children from being abused in the act of making porn -- have been applied to prosecute teenagers for engaging in self-expression. That said, the risks are there, and sending such pictures is probably usually a mistake. But the certain harm of lacking freedom is worse than the potential harm of making a mistake. And it's not much of an argument to say that we should impose oppressive laws on people because they disobey the oppressive laws we have imposed on them -- let alone because other people their age have.

Posted by Catherine, Toronto on September 12, 2011:

I don't see why the girls have any more right to expect things they post on Facebook to not have real-world consequences than anybody else. We've all heard about college age people learning that posting certain things might hinder their getting a job, or have a negative impact on their current one, if someone happens to see it and mention it to the wrong person. People might not want to do business with you, people in positions of power over you might punish you. How long should we insulate children from the consequences of their actions, particularly ones that harm others? From knowing that when they do something in public, people might see them, and therefore, they might get caught?

---

Alexander replies: I'm not saying people should be insulated from the consequences of their actions. But whatever happened as a result of the parents reading these comments wasn't just a consequence of the teenagers' actions, it was an effect of the photographer's actions too, at least if the parents would not have found out otherwise.

That said, I do agree that people should think about what they post publicly -- although too much caution in this regard can easily become cowardice. And if someone had said to these girls, "What if your parents find out?" that person would have been doing them a service.

Posted by Geoff, Arizona on September 12, 2011:

Mr. Cohen's beliefs and ideals are not unlike my own -- when I was 33 years old. It will be very interesting to see if his convictions remain so well defined when he achieves, say, 60....

---

Alexander replies: I actually laughed out loud when I read this -- it's been a while since someone who knew my age told me when I was older I'd understand! So although, if I were younger, I'd be offended -- this sort of remark disparages the target's power of reason, which is the essence of his humanity, in order to allow the speaker to assure himself of his superiority and correctness without requiring him to examine the basis of his opinion -- I'm too amused to work up an outrage. I hope you live to be 120, and I hope that's long enough for you to see the error of your ways.

Posted by Chris Weedsport, NY on September 12, 2011:

I just want to state that I fully support the photographer; it is so often the case that "it's none of my business", leaving a situation unpublished and under-appreciated or completely ignored, allowing those perpetrating the negative behavior to believe that they are not doing anything wrong.

Shame on anyone who believes that they don't need to stand up for high standards and morals! Shame on those who turn a blind eye because it's none of their business!

The truth is that we all have a moral obligation to eliminate negativity everywhere we go and in everything we do. To do less is to be less than human.

---

Alexander replies: I absolutely agree that we ought to stand up for what's right. But we can't have "a moral obligation to eliminate negativity everywhere we go," because that would be an unlimited claim on our finite resources, because it would consume our own potential happiness, and because it simply can't be achieved without violating other people's rights. Would you kill people who refuse to stop making nasty comments?

When you see people saying cruel things without justification, you certainly should express your disapproval. I'd love to see school communities work at establishing a culture where this sort of conduct reduces the social standing of those who engage in it rather than those who are targeted. And individuals, especially when it requires going against the cultural grain, should make clear that such speech reflects far worse on the one who utters it than on the one of whom it is uttered. (I can't resist quoting Harry Potter for an example: "I think I can tell the wrong sort for myself, thanks.") But there are limits to what it is praiseworthy to do in response to a given blameworthy act. Where the act is mere unpleasant speech, throwing the security of a person's body, liberty and property into jeopardy is an excessive response. And that's what telling a parent does.

Posted by Jason, Chattanooga, TN on September 12, 2011:

I disagree that the photographer should be considered a "bully". If that were true, then anyone who reports a crime in progress is a bully. If I see kids robbing a store and call police (who then notify the dictatorial parents), am I a bully? What if a group of teens is physically beating a smaller teen; am I a bully for notifying the authorities or their parents? Physical beating is only about a half a step above bullying, which is essentially mental abuse.

The author calls parents "dictators". I agree, and I think there are good reasons for this. My 6-year old doesn't have the experience or wisdom to make major decisions, so I make them for him and "force" him to comply. He goes to bed at bedtime instead of staying up until midnight watching "Phineas and Ferb", and he exercises by playing outside instead of spending all day playing video games. When he's older he'll do his homework before playing during the week. From the little I learned about the teens in this story, it sounds like they still need someone to make decisions for them because obviously they aren't fully mentally developed.

As for the statement that the victim never needs see the Facebook page, that's not true. When someone updates their status or posts to their FB wall that post is broadcast to everyone in the poster's friend list. If the victim is a FB "friend" they will see the post. If not, everyone the poster knew will see it and pass it on. Is it considered bullying if you spread a vicious rumor about someone, but no one ever tells the victim that they are under attack?

As for the other topic, I thought the "campus" tagline was amusing and pointed, both good qualities in a TisT tagline. But although I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms and defend oneself, I'd have to think long and hard before allowing open carry by students on campus. I agree that MOST people that age are fully functional adults who can make rational decisions, but I've also seen some rather emotional and violent displays over grades, political differences, and romantic entanglements. Thinking back, if my classmates were armed I can think of several occasions where an otherwise rational student would have probably fired a weapon in a fit on anger. Like the time the guy found out that he was finally and permanently flunking out; he was NOT thinking rationally. In reality he only threw a stapler through a window and knocked a door down on his way out of the offices; if he had possessed a gun, he would have spent the rest of his life in jail.

---

Alexander replies: It's morally proper to use force to protect against force, so no, it's not bullying to call the police about a robbery.

How do you know they're "not fully mentally developed," except that they did something of which you (rightly) disapprove? Should all the idiots who get covered in TRUE -- most of whom are over 18 -- have their lives run for them?

Who sees what on Facebook is complicated. If these individuals were Facebook friends with their victims, then yes, their victims would probably see what they wrote. But it is possible to defriend people, and it is possible (I'm told) to stay off Facebook.

Posted by Richard, California on September 12, 2011:

I'm confused. Is it bullying to expect someone to realize their behavior may have consequences? Assuming you are protecting the bully from "unnecessary risk" at the parents' hands is a rather wild assumption. By not telling, you are arguably failing to protect multiple other of the bully's victims from present and future unnecessary risk.

Posted by Clive -- Austin, Texas on September 12, 2011:

So Alexander believes that subjecting children to parental discipline puts them at "substantial risk"? And he believes that people are somehow less victimized because they aren't forced to read the insults that a bully directs toward them? Sheesh...I'm afraid Mr. Cohen is not the sharpest arrow in your quiver, Randy. But we can be grateful for at least one thing: He chose to stay away from practicing law.

Posted by Deborah, DC on September 12, 2011:

I think I'm going to enjoy reading Alexander's contributions even if I disagree with them -- at least they'll make me think! (BTW, I think the photographer should have talked to the bullies directly, not to their parents.)

As I was reading through the interview, I kept thinking about a conversation I had just yesterday with a young man I met while watching football. We discussed youth rights, specifically the fact that people can die for our country but are not allowed to have a beer. He mentioned his group's slogan "they serve us, but we won't serve them".

So imagine my surprise to see the name and link for the "National Youth Rights Association" with that slogan on the front page (and my new friend's picture on the Officers & Staff page)!

Looking forward to more.

---

I'll clarify that your friend isn't Alexander; he's not on their staff. And I really like the open mind you display in your first sentence. -rc

Alexander replies: Thanks!

Posted by Mike from Dallas on September 13, 2011:

Many levels of thought on this subject. One, of course, is the "right" of the business owner to do business with those one chooses, as it should be. The photographer was within her rights. Also, customers can decide whether to do business with one who would involve oneself in the personal matters of others, as is their right. Neither side is right or wrong, and both sides must personally weigh their decisions upon their personal ethics.

To equate "tattling" over a non-crime, such as being nasty, as the same as the duty to report a crime is certainly overly dramatic. Do not presume to tell me what I should or should not know about my kids. As an adult, I may resent your meddling and regard it every bit as much about bullying as what you accuse my kid.

To the commentor who wondered if Alexander's principles will remain constant when he's 60, I believe so. I agreed with them when I was 33, and with a year to go before I hit 60, I still agree with them.

Pertinent to the issue of "tattling". Let me preface by saying that I've been married to my wife for over 20 years and I trust her implicitly. So when someone decided he had a duty to inform me of my wife's infidelity, I supposed my normal reaction should have been to be suspicious of my wife. But that was not my reaction.

Here I have a happy marriage. What purpose did it serve HIM to tell me that I really didn't? Am I supposed to presume that he was SO altruistic that he was only concerned about my well-being? And, if so, how would his information continue to serve my well-being? Further, was I supposed to blindly accept such information when I had no other indications of infidelity?

My response was to blast him verbally for trying to upset my relation with my wife, and forever avoid him as any kind of friend. Fortunately so, since he was given to rumor, innuendo, and gossip which turned out to be entirely false. But even if it were true, it's still between me and my wife, not some outsider with no investment in our relationship.

And that is my point about Alexander's position on a bully who, with no vested interest in the relationship, chooses to interfere between parents and a teen. The photographer could rightfully choose to not do business, but should only have given the reason if, and when, pressed for it. Otherwise, it's a self-righteous assertion of superior authority.