Bully for you

Forgive the non-parent for not reacting the same way as some excitable parents and armchair jurors, but the naming and shaming of a troubled child ain't exactly my thing.

I limit my characterization to “excitable,” but there are more damning descriptions that can be utilized to better effect.

Sure, the video of that Ateneo student taunting, humiliating, and hurting another student was shocking and alarming. Sure, his actions were reprehensible, and should be addressed. No quarrel there. The school should take action. The kid must face consequences. His victims must be recognized and supported.

Perfectly legitimate goals. Society must come together and support these. We must all act to end bullying. Report, address, and eliminate it.

But not by circulating the child's name, Facebook account, and other sundry details for the world to see. Not by spreading unconfirmed gossip about what he supposedly has repeatedly done before that was allegedly ignored by the school because of some whispered connection to a billionaire with influence in the school.

And certainly, not by adjudging the child, his brother, and his parents for being as guilty as hell. Wow, his brother was kicked out of another school and a troublemaker and bad example. Imagine that, his father was a weak, irresponsible parent who raised his kid the worst way possible.

Why stop there? Why not drag the sister into it for failing to handcuff her brother to his bedposts? Blame the grandparents and the great-grandparents for having raised their respective families so badly through multi-generations of evil genes being passed down? Oh, why the heck don't we blame World War II for allowing their genetic strain to survive?

Things have become so ridiculous, a concerned Canadian-Filipino father, military tats and all, posted his own video challenging the father of the kid to a fight, and betting P100,000 on the outcome. So, exactly how good an example is that father setting for his own kids? When mad: resort to fisticuffs. And make it sweeter by adding cash to the pot. First-class parenting values right there.

The kid supposedly deserves all the opprobrium, threats, memes, and jokes because he was so evil. And that video may be shared because he allowed it to be filmed, and therefore he was showing off, and therefore gave consent to the entire world seeing him at his best.

I would beg to disagree with that train of thought, though. I would posit that that child is entitled to a right to privacy, which shields him from this public whipping we are seeing on social media.

I saw a post by a lawyer that the rights to personal data sharing, even if waived (supposedly by the child filming and posting himself) can be re-asserted by merely withdrawing consent. (In other words, the kid may have consented for his private data to be shared, but under our draconian data privacy laws, that consent can be withdrawn anytime).

I go one step further by positing that the child couldn't have given valid consent in the first place. Remember, he is a minor. And minors cannot waive rights until they are 18. So, not having given valid consent to the filming of the video and its posting, nobody could use his consent to excuse their own actions. In other words, everyone who reveled in the video and delighted in its sharing and made themselves feel a wee bit better by publicly judging him to be guilty of bullying may, in the end, just be all guilty of violating his rights as a child.

This may be tough to accept, inasmuch as each one of us wanted to rush in and protect the victims and shield them from harm and pain. But bullying the perpetrator online isn't going to help the victims ease their pain. It just lends itself to another cycle of bullying, where adults gang up on a child.

Is this the world we want to live in?