Giving a bit more context it wasn't just this one girl. This was a child porn trading ring with multiple victims, and they all had gone to the school administration and some even went to the police.

The principal, Danielle Coriell, said an investigation came up cold that day as no student took responsibility. The deputy assigned to the school searched social media for the images unsuccessfully, according to a recording of the disciplinary hearing.

“I was led to believe that this was just hearsay and rumors,” the girl’s father said, recounting a conversation he had that morning with the school counselor.

But the girl was miserable, and a police incident report showed more girls were reporting that they were victims, too. The 13-year-old returned to the counselor in the afternoon, asking to call her father. She said she was refused.

Her father says she sent a text message that said, “Dad,” and nothing else. They didn't talk. With the mocking unrelenting, the girl texted her sister, “It’s not getting handled.”

And so she handled it herself.

Every moment she waited she was being further victimized, further harassed, and further threatened. Sexual harassment is considered sufficiently threatening behavior for self-defense to be justified, and that's how the police are handling it.

You think it's okay to hit a car thief but not a child pornographer. Your viewpoint is invalid.

the problem (her punishment) was not a natural result of her actions. it ocurred because the school interfered

Not quite. You shortened the phrase. You dropped five critical words that were present in the original phrase:

and any level of force necessary to end that harm

Further, you're dishonestly relying on a colloquial definition of "harm", rather than a legal one. "Rejection" does not qualify.

It has more than one meaning, though.

In this context, you're actually going to argue that you intended something other than the legal meaning?

Me:

The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.

You:

So the way she tried to incite others to commit felony assault?

I was being charitable when I suggested you were simply ignorant of the meaning.

You seem overly hostile though.

I am reasonably confident I am arguing with an unreasonable, intellectually dishonest person. I do not believe you are arguing logically, rationally, or in good faith. My hostility arises from that belief.

It is absolutely less physically violent, I was never discussing violence in the broadest sense of the term, but physical violence.

Which is interesting and perhaps you should review why you are selectively focusing on this - it is the reason people are saying you are victim-blaming, after all.

You selectively pick the physical violence the victim employed as a reaction to the sexual violence she experienced. You consciously choose to ignore the sexual violence having been done to her, and in fact spell this out very clearly in your response here.

In other words, you choose to ignore the violence the perpetrator originally employed, and only want to ‘discuss’ (i.e. delegitimise) the responsive violence employed by the victim as her last method of harm reduction. That is the classical rhetorical device used to victim-blame, and if you still actually can’t see it I’d suggest reading up on that and investigating your own ethics.

Intriguing. Please explain why "instigation" does not apply here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942[1]

His works and words certainly meet the court's criteria. He wasn't just generally offensive; he personalized his lewd, obscene, and libelous harassment directly toward his chosen victim.