|
Branding is hazing only if it is not done by choice. What's the difference between them deciding to brand their letters on versus having them tattooed on? I'm wary of any law that tries to limit how people can modify their bodies when it's by their own choice.
And given that what Wolfman said about only initiated members getting brands (I can't imagine a pledge of an NPHC organization being stupid enough to get a brand before initiation!), even in the rare cases where force or pressure is used, it would not be part of the new member period, and thus it's not hazing. And in cases like that, wouldn't an assault law already basically cover what needs to be covered?
|