As I've predicted repeatedly, bullying has become the unlikely yet highly effective avenue of choice for forcing specific social and sexual agendas into schools and communities.  Screaming that any opposition is tantamount to bullying, schools and communities seem at a loss as to how to maintain free speech while also addressing the issues of bullying.  

The latest efforts are focused around an effort by the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) to amend an existing law on bullying to make sure that the bill is not construed as a restriction of free speech.  At issue is the concern of some that anti-bullying legislation could be used against someone who is not actually bullying, but is rather expressing a difference of belief on a topic.  In other words, if I actually say to someone that I do not agree with homosexuality or gay marriage and I believe that these behaviors are contrary to our design, is what I've just said the same thing as bullying if someone who hears me say it feels offended or disrespected or otherwise put upon?  Some people - and I'd include myself in that group - are afraid that it might.

Not surprisingly, advocates for Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered rights insist that amending the law is not only allowing the possibility of, but actually equivalent to encouraging bullying of LGBT individuals.  This article was linked to by acquaintances on Facebook.  It takes it's cue from this article.  A more balanced report can be found here.  The FACT website has several sections that deal with their proposed amendment, which you can review here and here.  

As I've repeatedly reiterated, bullying is wrong.  Period.  The particular nuances of why one person is bullied are by and large irrelevant in my experience.  Bullying is ultimately an issue of one or more person's failure or inability to express themselves appropriately.  Their alternative is verbal or physical violence or intimidation - directly or indirectly.  This is inappropriate and wrong.  

It is not the same as expressing a point of view that contradicts what someone else values or cherishes.  And the fear that anti-bullying legislation is a back-door means of banning such dissenting opinion is not unfounded.  

The existing bill appears to attempt to deal with this issue in Section 1, subsection B.  But I tend to agree that clarifying further is important.  A school district faced with the very real prospect of legal action if it can be judged as lax on anti-bullying measures is going to find it a lot more compelling to limit free speech too much, rather than attempt to finesse a middle ground that is faithful to the existing bill's apparent intent without stifling open discourse.