ETA: Please see this comment thread for an analysis that, to me, makes some sense of why an exemption (though not necessarily one which was as all-encompassing as the one we got) might be required under the Michigan constitution.

#

After my Friday post on Michigan’s antibullying bill in the senate and the built-in exemption for religious/moral speech, a number of folks informed me that an antibullying law without such an exception would be unconstitutional, and any such law would be quickly overturned.

I’m trying to understand this. Looking at the decade-long debate over Michigan antibullying legislation, it doesn’t appear to have been constitutional concerns holding this up. The biggest problem was a “difference in opinion by advocates on both sides on whether or not to enumerate — meaning whether to create a list of the groups or traits most likely to be the victims of bullying.” Enumeration was seen by some groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, as a “Trojan Horse” for the homosexual agenda.

Most of the articles I’ve seen stress that this was the sticking point, which to me suggests that inserting the “religious and moral” exemption was a compromise to satisfy the opposition groups.

As always, I could be wrong. Maybe there’s also a valid constitutional requirement for such exemptions. Enough people were claiming so to make me want to examine the possibility.

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech. The thing is, there are in fact limits to both the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Any antibullying legislation will restrict speech by stating that certain types of speech (bullying) are unacceptable in the public school system. Likewise, for example, if my religious beliefs involve human sacrifice, the government will act to stop me from practicing that aspect of my religion.

So we obviously can pass laws that restrict both speech and religion. I think we should be very cautious about doing so, and in general I’m a strong supporter of such freedoms … but they’re not limitless.

So I started researching antibullying laws in other states. To the best of my knowledge, each of the following laws is currently on the books.

• Alaska: House Bill 482. No religious exemption.
• Alabama: Student Harassment Prevention Act. Section 16-28B-7 specifies that “This chapter shall not affect the freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed each student under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.”
• Arkansas: Act 907. The text of this act notes that it is not intended to “unconstitutionally restrict protected rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious exercise, or freedom of assembly.”
• Arizona: HB 2368. No religious exemption.
• California: California Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000. This law forbids discrimination, but has no specific reference to bullying. Exempts private schools.
• Colorado: SENATE BILL 01-080. No religious exemption.
• Connecticut: Public Act 2-119, SHB 5425. No religious exemption.
• Delaware: House Bill No. 7. No religious exemption.
• Florida: Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act. “Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the rights of students or school employees that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
• Georgia: Senate Bill 250. No religious exemption.
• Hawaii: House Bill 688. No religious exemption. (Admittedly, this is a short and, in the words of one representative, watered-down law.)
• Iowa: Iowa’s Safe Schools Law. No religious exemption.

I don’t have time to track down the laws of all 50 states, but I figure the first 12 provided a reasonable sample size. Of those 12 laws, I found no religious exceptions whatsoever in 8 of them (67%). Another simply excludes private schools, but has no religious exception for the public school setting.

In addition, the disclaimers in those minority of laws that include them don’t feel strike me as giving the same kind of sweeping exemption to “religious/moral” speech as the Michigan law, but that might be a matter of interpretation.

I’m not a lawyer, and legal research isn’t my area of expertise. Maybe these laws have been amended or struck down and I just couldn’t find that information. But based on the evidence I’m seeing, the argument that antibullying legislation without an exemption for religious speech would be unconstitutional and thrown out just doesn’t appear to hold water.

I was originally going to post this tomorrow morning, but it’s finished and I’m cranky, so I’m hitting the Publish button now.

The Michigan Senate passed Matt’s Safe School Law on Tuesday.  Sponsored by Senator Rick Jones, this bill would amend the Michigan School Code to require public schools to adopt antibullying policies. So far, so good, right?

The full text of the bill is here. It states that “ALL PUPILS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE POLICY AND THAT BULLYING IS EQUALLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS SUBJECT MATTER OR MOTIVATING ANIMUS.” (State senators love CAPS-lock!)

The bill also requires any school employee with “RELIABLE INFORMATION THAT WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE PERSON TO SUSPECT THAT A PUPIL IS A TARGET OF BULLYING” to report it, theoretically making it harder for teachers and other staff to dismiss or ignore incidents of bullying. Also a good thing.

And then, toward the end, the bill makes a mockery of itself with part 8:

THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN

In other words, bullying is OKAY if you do it out of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction. You could tell that kid at the bus stop “You’re a filthy faggot and you’re going to burn in hell!” every day, and that would be just peachy, as long as you’re sincere.

(To forestall an argument I’ve already have once today, please note that “this section” refers to the entire bill: Section 1310b of the revised school code. This means that nothing in this bill prohibits such statements. So please don’t try to argue “But doesn’t this other part of the bill balance it out or provide protection?”)

The Bill is named after Matt Epling, who committed suicide 40 days after being assaulted at the end of eighth grade. Matt’s father Kevin, who has been working to get Michigan to pass an anti-bullying law, said, “I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying, when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in MI’ law.”

The Bill hasn’t yet passed through the House, so it’s possible, even likely, that things will change. But what the hell? Can someone please explain why an anti-bullying law requires a specific exemption for religiously-motivated hate?

I assume the fear is that this law could be used to squash people’s freedom of religion. I could see someone worrying that their kid will say, “At Sunday school we learned you have to be baptised to go to Heaven!” and end up accused of bullying: “Teacher, Billy said I’m going to Hell!”

But according to the bill, bullying is defined as acts:

…BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT OR MORE OTHER PUPILS THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY

My “We learned about baptism on Sunday” example does not fall under this definition of bullying. Part 8 of this bill is not about protecting freedom of religion; it’s about protecting people’s “right” to intentionally inflict harm, or to act in ways that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm other students … as long as it’s done for religious or “moral” reasons.

Let’s make this as simple as possible, shall we?

1. Bullying is not okay. Period.

2. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to physically or verbally assault people.

3. If your sincerely-held religious beliefs require you to bully children, then your beliefs are fucked up.

Any questions?

Are you doing National Novel Writing Month this year, Jim?

I’ve done novel dares before, and twice finished novels of roughly 80K words in a single month, but my schedule these days keeps me firmly on the one book/year routine.

How does NaNoWriMo compare to real writing?

Well, you know, “real” writers sit down and put words on the page. Whereas those wacky NaNoWriMo folks are all about sitting down and putting words on pages. How could you possibly compare the two?

Doesn’t it bother you when hundreds of thousands of people every year turn your career, the dream job you’ve worked at for 16 years, into some kind of game?

Writing a book is an awesome accomplishment. Few of the people who do NaNoWriMo are going to be professional novelists, but why should I care? Do you hear pro football players grumbling that informal, after-school football games take away the specialness of the NFL? Where are you getting these dumbass questions?

Sorry. Do you think it’s possible to write a good novel in 30 days?

Yes. I know very few people who can do it, but it’s certainly possible. I know one author who wrote and sold a novel to a major publisher in less than a week. In most cases though, what you’re going to get after NaNoWriMo is a first draft. And if you’re anything like me, finishing that draft is only the start of the process…

Isn’t the emphasis on quantity over quality a bad thing, teaching participants to write crap?

What’s wrong with writing crap? My first drafts are full of it. That’s what rewrites are for.

Eric Rosenfield says NaNoWriMo’s whole attitude is “repugnant, and pollutes the world with volumes upon volumes of one-off novels by people who don’t really care about novel writing.“

As we know, one-off novel pollution is a serious issue, and I’m hoping the EPA will take steps to protect us all from this growing problem before it’s too late. I remember last December when I came home to find thousands of NaNoWriMoers had broken into my home, flinging the still-warm pages of their manuscripts all over my floors. It was a nightmare. My feet are still scarred from the papercuts, and we never did find one of the cats. Don’t listen to the novel pollution deniers! Read the science and call your legislator today!

Also, if people don’t care about novel writing, they wouldn’t be writing a novel!

Well, what about Keith DeCandido’s post, wherein he says NaNoWriMo has nothing to do with storytelling; it teaches professionalism and deadlines, and the importance of butt in chair?

I think he has a point about the importance of self-discipline, about sitting down and writing, as opposed to just talking about it. Professionalism? I don’t even know what that means…

Fine, what do you think NaNoWriMo is about?

Well, the website says it’s about a bunch of people trying to write 50,000 words in a month, but what NaNoWriMo is really about is giving “professional” writers like me the opportunity to weigh in with Very Important Opinions.

Any last words of advice, Mr. Very Important Author?

Everyone’s process is different. Don’t worry too much about what the rest of us say. Figure out what works for you, and have fun.

And when you finish, take the time to check out sites like Writer Beware to make sure you don’t get scammed. There are a lot of unscrupulous people out there who are  eager to take your money. Don’t give it to them.

I generally prepare blog posts in the evenings, which has worked well for the most part. But then you get weeks like this, where I receive an urgent and ASAP request to put some material together for Libriomancer so that my publisher can get things into the catalog and start doing some promotion.

Sorry, y’all. The book wins out over the blog every time.

So instead, today I’ll just link you over to the Very Special Halloween Episodes of the SF Squeecast, where you can listen to awesome people like Catherynne M. Valente, Elizabeth Bear, Lynne M. Thomas,  and Seanan McGuire talk about their favorite Halloweenish stuff!

And also me. I was invited to be the Halloween Guest of Squee, which is a pretty cool title that I want to add to my business cards. I chatted about the Halloween episode of Buffy and answered some Very Silly Questions.

So click on over, enjoy, and have a great weekend, all!

I wrote a follow-up post to my piece on whether or not authors should blog, and why. If you want to know the secret of writing a successful blog, just head over to SF Novelists, and all shall be revealed!

(As it turns out, the secret is pretty easy. Putting it into practice, that can be a bit more challenging…)

I’ve seen several people linking to this article about Rick Santorum, an article titled “Santorum: ‘I’ll Die’ to Stop Same Sex Marriages.” The links have sometimes included comments about the messed-up priorities of a man who would sooner die than permit a loving, same-sex couple the same kind of rights he enjoys as a straight man.

There’s a problem. What Santorum actually said was:

“The battle we’re engaged in right now is same sex marriage, ultimately that is the very foundation of our country, the family, what the family structure is going to look like. I’ll die on that hill.”

You see that last bit? “I’ll die on that hill.” That’s what we call a figure of speech.

I wrote on Friday that I was going to write the crap out of a chapter. I was not, in fact, using my keyboard to extract literal feces from my document. I was using a figure of speech to more colorfully describe my efforts to improve the story.

Look, I find a lot of Santorum’s views and statements to be despicable. But my feelings are based on what he’s said and done, not on twisting his words into something he didn’t say.

I don’t care where you fall on the political spectrum. When you distort (or outright lie about) what someone said in order to try to score points, you lose credibility.

This has been Jim’s cranky political post of the day. Thank you for listening, and enjoy the rest of your weekend.