That's a good point; it's not a given that physical attacks are more damaging than verbal ones, and some verbal attacks are undeniably worse than some physical ones. My point is that punishing people for self defense discourages self defense. That effectively encourages attacks by telling would be attackers all attempts at self defense will be punished as "retaliation" rather than defense. Setting aside whether it's OK to encourage people to torment much bigger, stronger and self controlled people, secure in the knowledge that their victims must choose between being punished by their abusers or by an authority figure, it's a bad idea to tell people they have to take a beating before anyone will prevent a beating.

We don't have to get hyperbolic (however well it might illustrate the point); how many times must that kid in the video take a punch before it's OK for him to prevent another one? He's got his back to the wall and is being punched in the face; if fighting back still earns him a punishment, what, if anything, wouldn't? Does his attacker have to draw blood? Break a bone? Does he have to wind up in the hospital from attacks no authorities prevented before he can defend himself without being punished by those same authorities? "I hope he doesn't hurt me so bad I can't tell the principal what happened, but if I hit back I'll get detention". Sorry, I don't believe in starting fights, but I do believe in ending them. I can understand punishing both parties when provocation is so unclear that we can't be certain who provided it; there the "if it's not worth punishment, it's not worth fighting" logic makes sense, but when it's obvious and undeniable who instigated the fight I don't think it's right, let alone advisable, to punish people for refusing to be a punching bag.