Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
That I do not see as a problem. Criticism is not worded as bullying, which is designed to make people feel bad.
But who gets to define "feel bad"? I feel bad whenever I'm criticized. I feel bad when it's pointed out that I am wrong, or I made a mistake. But that is not bullying. How something makes someone else "feel" is immaterial. "Feel" is a strictly subjective term. There's no way you can legislated based on what someone else "feels".

I do not think so. A threat would be something that the threatening person wants to do him or herself.
What about language which encourages a third party to do something? Isn't saying something like, "I hope someone beats the shit out of you!" a threatening, bullying remark? But it doesn't imply that the bullier intends to do anything.

Hm. I thought zero tolerance simply meant that you had to react, not how -?
Not necessarily. There are some laws which mandate the severity of punishment for certain crimes, like the three strike laws. A guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his children will, if convicted of his third felony, be sentenced to life in prison because of such laws. There's no allowance for circumstances.

Yes, it is complicated, and ties in with the photograph under people's skirt (if posted online) and revenge porn. Where do you draw the line?
Personally, I draw the line at privacy. While the modern era pretty much guarantees that you are under some sort of surveillance whenever you leave your home, there are (theoretically) strict laws about how those images can be used, and where cameras can be placed. Clandestinely using cameras to invade someone's privacy should be illegal. Posting such images publicly, on line or in print, without the subject's consent should be a felony. Publishing those images for profit (as in the paparazzi) should require both the photographer AND the publishing entity to turn over all profits to the subject.