Cyberbullying Topic

West Coast 2010 December PF

West Coast

Public Forum December 2010 Cyberbullying Topic West Coast 2010 December PF

Topic Analysis 1/2

The Public Forum topic for December 2010 is “Resolved: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense. The Pro side of this resolution will argue that bullying accomplished through the use of technological means, such as text messaging or social networking sites, is indistinguishable from physical coercion, and should therefore be illegal. The Con side will argue that cyberbullying, while problematic, doesn’t warrant action to separately criminalize it. This months Public Forum Briefs are intended to give you a set of evidence to prepare and debate these questions.

TOPIC OVERVIEW

While there is no official definition of the term “cyberbullying,” it is generally taken to mean harassment which occurs via a technological medium, such as email, text messaging, or social networking sites like facebook. It is generally assumed to apply to interactions between minors, rather than behavior involving adults, though some literature uses the term more broadly. The forms that this harassment can take are limited only by the imagination of the cyberbully – threatening texts, fake facebook profiles, posting embarrassing photographs of others, name calling on forums, etc…All would qualify under the aegis of “cyberbullying.” Cyberbullying shares many features in common with the traditional concept of bullying – it involves unwanted attention, harassment, threats, coercion, intimidation, and the like. It differs primarily in the medium used, and the fact that it is more likely to occur anonymously, and more likely to occur away from the confines of school. A recent string of tragic incidents has brought a greater degree of media attention to the problem of cyberbullying. An 18 year old freshman at Rutgers University named Tyler Clementi recently committed suicide after his roommate shared sexually explicit video of him on the internet. In early 2010, a 15 year old Massachusetts high school student named Phoebe Prince killed herself after severe bullying by a group of classmates. Even as early as 2006, a 13 year old named Megan Meier killed herself in Missouri after harassment on MySpace. These high profile suicides have inspired a greater degree of attention on cyberbullying as a distinct phenomenon, and inspired calls at both the federal and state level for legislation criminalizing it. How widespread is cyberbullying? Research to date has been relatively sparse, and the academic community is only recently starting the process of collecting statistics and defining the scope of the problem. One estimate of middle school students says that approximately a third of children have suffered from cyberbullying at least once. Some people see this as only the logical outgrowth of the age-old phenomenon of school-yard bullying, while others see the rise of technological communication media as presenting a new, distinct, and more dangerous set of challenges for keeping children safe. This month’s topic picks up on the ongoing controversy and poses the question of whether cyberbullying should be considered a criminal offense. On the one hand, cyberbullying can unquestionably be harmful to the victim. Even in cases far short of the aforementioned suicides, cyberbullying can make children feel threatened, harm their self-esteem, and damage their educational environment. In this sense, it is largely indistinct from the effects of traditional bullying, despite the fact that no physical harm has been done. On the other hand, cyberbullying is clearly distinct from these more traditional forms of intimidation – sticks and stones vs. words. The real point of controversy is whether or not cyberbullying should be separately criminalized. Are status quo statutes against harassment and threatening behavior sufficient? Or do schools, parents, West Coast 2010 December PF and law enforcement lack adequate tools to address this problem? That is what this month’s topic confronts. West Coast 2010 December PF

Topic Analysis 2/2

DEBATING THE PRO SIDE The Pro should begin by focusing on the harms of cyberbullying. They should use some of the previously mentioned anecdotes (and many other available ones) about the possible tragic consequences of cyberbullying to make the case that it is a problem in need of addressing. The Pro should draw on the recent wave of literature and media attention which paints of picture of a national epidemic of cyberbullying. They should also be sure to emphasize that cyberbullying is distinct from traditional bullying, and worth discussing separately. First, they should point out that cyberbullying is frequently anonymous. While traditional bullying requires proximity, and therefore forces the bully to immediately confront the consequences of their actions, bullying on the internet allows cruelty without accountability. Secondly, Cyberbullying can occur anywhere. This makes the victim feel that there is nowhere “safe” to escape from the negative effects of the bullying. Most importantly for the Pro is to develop an argument in favor of criminalizing cyberbullying. The Pro should research and rely on arguments made by legislators who have introduced anti- cyberbullying legislation in response to some of the recent tragedies. These advocates argue that the law would serve an important symbolic function which helps distinguish why cyberbulling should be opposed. They also argue that a new law is necessary, as status quo laws don’t go far enough in defining online activity as harassing behavior. The Pro should argue that while a schoolyard bully who beats up another student could be suspended for fighting, the same bully would be untouchable by the school (or police) for actions taken on a computer or cell phone from home. The Pro should also make sure to have responses to status quo actions which could be taken to address the harms of cyberbullying – they need to win both that current laws fail, and that schools, parents, and other authority figures are currently not up to the task. The Pro also needs to be able to answer arguments that criminalizing cyberbullying unfairly infringes on students right to free speech. While it is true that many types of offensive or inappropriate speech is protected by the first amendment, the Pro should argue that cyberbullying is not protected because it crosses the line into harassment, threats, and coercion – which should be considered illegal infringements of the victim’s right to safety. The Pro should argue that any cyberbullying legislation could be adequately crafted to take these concerns into consideration.

DEBATING THE CON SIDE The Con should first focus on how widespread the harms of cyberbullying really are. They should question whether or not the Pro’s picture of a national epidemic is accurate, or whether it is being blown out of proportion by the media based on a few (admittedly tragic) occurrences. The Con should argue that while cyberbullying might be a problem, it doesn’t rise to the level of requiring separate legislation. The Con should also argue that new actions to criminalize cyberbullying are unnecessary. All 50 states already have laws which criminalize harassing and threatening behavior, and law enforcement could probably choose to utilize these statutes when cyberbullying crosses the line from simple horseplay. The Con can also argue that legislation is ineffective – and that remedies for cyberbullying must come from parents and schools, not the law. Lastly, the Con should argue that cyberbullying legislation infringes on free speech. They should characterize offensives texts or emails as wrong, but still protected by the first amendment. There is a difference, the Con should argue, between hitting someone and sending a text message. Infringements on free speech are therefore not justified, just because some people might be offended by the content. West Coast 2010 December PF

Topic Definitions Cyberbullying is bullying with technology Olweus, bullying prevention program, 2010, “What Is Cyber Bullying?” http://www.olweus.org/public/cyber_bullying.page Cyber bullying is bullying through email, instant messaging (IMing), chat room exchanges, Web site posts, or digital messages or images send to a cellular phone or personal digital assistant (PDA) (Kowalski et al. 2008). Cyber bullying, like traditional bullying, involves an imbalance of power, aggression, and a negative action that is often repeated. Cyberbullying is harassment using the internet Mike Hardcastle, 2010, “What is Cyberbullying,” http://teenadvice.about.com/od/schoolviolence/a/cyberbullying1.htm Cyberbullying is any harassment that occurs via the Internet. Vicious forum posts, name calling in chat rooms, posting fake profiles on web sites, and mean or cruel email messages are all ways of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is only between minors Stop Cyberbullying, 2010, “What Is Cyberbullying,” http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/what_is_cyberbullying_exactly.html "Cyberbullying" is when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it is plain and simple cyber- harassment or cyberstalking. Adult cyber-harassment or cyberstalking is NEVER called cyberbullying. Criminal offense is an act punishable by law The Free Dictionary, 2010, “criminal offense,” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+offense (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act; "a long record of crimes" West Coast 2010 December PF

Pro West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Prevalent Cyberbullying is extremely prevalent Marisa Donelan, 2-7-2010, “Cyber-Bullying on Increase,” All Business, http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/families-children-family/13875874-1.html It's everywhere Derek Randel, a motivational speaker, former teacher and founder of StoppingSchoolViolence.com, said cyber-bullying has become so prevalent with emerging social media, such as Facebook and text messaging, that it has affected every school in every community. “It's everywhere," he said this week in a phone interview. Randel said he's saddened, but not surprised by the Massachusetts suicides, and said the public likely doesn't have an idea that there are hundreds of teen suicide attempts to every teen suicide death. Cyberbullying is a growing problem Marian Harris and Nancy Garland, State Reps. In Ohio, 10-26-2010, “Lawmakers propose a response,” Vindy, http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/oct/26/lawmakers-propose-a-response-to- growth-o/ Recent coverage in The Vin- dicator (“Dr. Phil’s bullying series includes local girl’s ordeal,” Oct. 7) draws attention to the growing problem of cyberbullying in our society. This latest type of torment involves one child harassing, threatening or intimidating another using text and instant messages, websites and other interactive technologies. A recent tragic event at Rutgers University further highlights the need to address this problem in Ohio. We have known for years that bullying can have devastating effects on a child’s development, school environment and academic performance. These heartbreaking consequences are only amplified with the addition of cyberbullying that blurs school borders. Students can now bully their classmates from anywhere using their computers and cell phones but the most harmful effects still occur at school where cruel Facebook taunts or text messages are read and spread around. Cyberbullying is even prevalent in college University of Northern Iowa, 5-4-2010, “Cyberbullying prevalent,” http://www.uni.edu/newsroom/stories/cyberbullying-prevalent-with-college-students Results showed that in the past six months, 34 percent of students had been victims of cyberbullying; 19 percent had been perpetrators and 64 percent had been observers of cyberbullying incidents. Significantly more males than females were observers of cyberbullying (73.7 percent versus 59.7 percent), and significantly more females than males were victims of such acts (38.1 percent versus 24.6 percent). The research showed that cyberbullying is prevalent among college students and suggests there is a need for more education about the issue. There is some relationship between parental involvement and cyberbullying, but the exact causes are unknown and need further exploration. West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Increasing Cyberbullying is on the increase – 30% of kids have been bullied My Baby Radio, 2010, “Cyber bullying on the increase,” http://www.mybabyradio.com/parenting/cyber-bullying-on-the-increase/ Cyber bullying is being used more and more by children intent on tormenting their classmates, that’s according to national charity Parentlineplus, who are receiving more than 300 calls a month on the issue. One girl whose mother contacted the charity had received 27 threatening texts in just one week. “One in three 11-14 year olds have been victims of cyber bullying at some point so it is a problem and it’s a big problem amongst girls,” said Sue Ormesher from the charity. She added: “It seems as though girls are making full use of new technology to bully……bullying has been around for an awful long time but previously, as bad as it was, it was left at the school gates or on the street but now it can come into peoples homes 24 hours a day through mobile phones and computers. Statistics prove cyberbullying is on the rise Kamaron Institute, 2010, “Cyber Bullying Statistics,” http://kamaron.org/Cyber-Bullying- Preemption-Schools Cyber Bullying incidents tracked at 6 percent in 2000 are now estimated in range of 18% of 42% of students in grades 4 through 8. 21% to 49% of students ts in grades 6 through 12 saying they have been bullied online.* Less than 20 percent tell their parents that they have been cyber bullying victims out of fear of loosing Internet access. It’s a cycle. More than half of students who are cyber bullyied also display cyber bullying behaviors. Teenagers tend to respond without thought of consequences. Cyber bullies sometimes leave their “electronic finger prints” behind. Electronic messages such as IM’s and emails leave "fingerprints" -- nine-digit numbers recorded with your ISP Cyberbullying is increasing yearly Ian Schwartz, 5-11-2007, “Increase in cyber-bullying,” Tech Addiction, http://www.techaddiction.ca/increase_in_cyber-bullying.html Although cyberspace can be a great way to get connected, it also allows room for potentially dangerous situations. Yesterday HOI 19 News told you about an Edison Junior high school student that police said made some disturbing comments in a chat room about hurting himself and other classmates. Some research indicates cyber bullying is happening more and more. According to the Karmon Institute an education training group. 20% to 50% percent of junior high and high school students said they have been bullied online. In 2000 6% of students said they were bullied. That same data said less than 20% told their parents about it. West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Harmful Cyberbullying is extremely harmful to kids Marian Harris and Nancy Garland, State Reps. In Ohio, 10-26-2010, “Lawmakers propose a response,” Vindy, http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/oct/26/lawmakers-propose-a-response-to- growth-o/ The National Association of School Psychologists reports that victims of cyberbullying have increased rates of depression, suicidal thoughts and poor academic achievement. These victims are also eight times more likely to bring a gun to school. Moreover, the Cyberbullying Research Center recently surveyed 4,000 students and found 20 percent had experienced cyberbullying in their lifetime. In the General Assembly, we have heard the tragic stories of students who’ve been victims of cyberbullying. We’ve heard parents and school administrators testify on the destructive consequences this behavior has on our students. That is why we are working on a bill to give schools the tools necessary to combat this destructive practice. Cyberbullying has all the same effects as regular bullying Cyber Bully Alert, 11-18-2008, “Effects of Cyber Bullying,” http://www.cyberbullyalert.com/blog/2008/11/effects-of-cyber-bullying/ Even though the bullying doesn’t take place on a one-on-one basis, MySpace cyber bullying and other forms of cyber bullying still show the same effects. Rather than just being bullied while in the classroom or play ground, children can be the target of cyber bullying 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Some of the more general effects of cyber bullying include poor performance at school, depression and low self- esteem. Because cyber bullying can take place outside of the classroom and at a more frequent rate, the child may experience more extreme cases of these effects. Consider these factors if you suspect that your child is being bullied online: * You child may feel like there is no escape from cyber bullying. It seems easy enough to close these social media accounts and simply turn off of the computer. However, for some kids avoiding these websites or instant messages may seclude them from one of the most important places they socialize. * Your child may be at home when they experience cyber bullying, which can lead to a sense of endangerment within the confines of their own room or house. * Cyber bullies are more likely to say harsher words online or by text message because they don’t have to say it to the other person’s face or see their reaction. * Your child may feel like they can’t be secure within their own surrounding because some cyber bullies never reveal their identity. The anonymity of cyber bullying can add to their feeling of being unsafe. Cyberbullying can have extremely negative effects Safe Guard Your Kids, 5-5-2010, “Cyberbullying,” http://safeguardyourkids.com/tag/effects-of- cyberbullying/ The effect cyberbullying has on our children can vary. Many kids are able to let it go and ignore it, especially if the bullying is minimal and if other kids they know are being harassed in the same way. Others seek revenge on the cyberbully, while some have been driven to suicide and even violent crimes as a result of cyberbullying. The effects can be extremely damaging and lasting. Many victims of cyberbullying suffer from depression, anxiety, low self esteem, and often feel unsafe, even when at home or in public places. The child engaging in the bullying can also suffer negative effects. They are often left with feelings of guilt and remorse, also leading to feelings of depression and low self esteem. These feeling can be endlessly multiplied if the bullying has a lasting negative effect on their victim, or has a violent or fatal conclusion. West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Real Bullying Cyberbullying is even worse than regular bullying Natasha Boddy, 4-10-2010, “Cyber-bullies more harmful,” The West Australian, http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7045472/cyberbullies-more-harmful-says-researcher/ Cyber-bullying has a more harmful effect on victims than face-to-face bullying but teachers lack the training to adequately deal with the growing problem, according to one of WA's leading cyber-bullying researchers. Edith Cowan University Child and Adolescent Health professor Donna Cross said today that research revealed almost one in 10 young people surveyed reported being cyber-bullied on a regular basis and 25 per cent of young people said they had experienced behaviour which would be classified as cyber-bullying. Speaking at National Centre Against Bullying Conference in Melbourne today, Professor Cross presented the findings from a three-year study involving 16,000 children which looked at the trends surrounding cyber-bullying. "Cyber-bullying presents what we call a higher-effect to danger ratio which means that it contributes to the greatest amount of harm or effect because it's delivered in isolation, it's 24-7, it's often much nastier than face-to-face bullying because they can do meaner stuff online than they could ever do looking at someone's face, there are no controls in place," she said. Anonymity means cyberbullying has less checks than regular bullying Natasha Boddy, 4-10-2010, “Cyber-bullies more harmful,” The West Australian, http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7045472/cyberbullies-more-harmful-says-researcher/ Professor Cross said the anonymity of cyber-bullying meant bullies had a greater effect on victims and were at less risk of being caught. "Young people often don't know who's been sending it so the harm that comes from this is obviously quite significant because it's a toxic cocktail," she said. "We know that face-to-face bullying is already extremely harmful to young people in the short and the long term, particularly if they receive it frequently and we believe that cyber-bullying cranks that up." Professor Cross said research also found that 80 to 90 per cent of young people who reported being cyber-bullied were also the victims of face-to-face bullying. Research found that while teachers expressed a willingness to address cyber-bullying, they lacked support and training to do this effectively. "My presentation is called 'same dog, different fleas' and we're trying to get the message across is that it is still harassment, it is still humiliation but it's being delivered through a different mode," she said. "It is really important that we know that because it's not really a new phenomenon - it's just a new way to deliver the pain to young people. Cyberbullying isn’t harmless regular bullying Marisa Donelan, 2-7-2010, “Cyber-Bullying on Increase,” All Business, http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/families-children-family/13875874-1.html Parents, school officials and police officers need to open their eyes to the problem, and not relate it to the school yard bullying from previous generations -- cyber-bullying doesn't "toughen a kid up," or build character, it can tear a child apart, he said. "Some adults do think, 'Oh, we had bullies when I was growing up, look how I turned out,'" Randel said. "That is such an old way of thinking. A lot of people do dismiss this quite a bit. ... You have to discuss this before it becomes a problem." West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Causes Suicide Cyberbullying causes suicides Cyberbullying Research Center, 2-16-2010, “The Relationship Between Cyberbullying and Suicide,” http://cyberbullying.us/blog/the-relationship-between-cyberbullying-and-suicide.html There have been many high profile and tragic incidents in the media in recent years which have linked adolescent suicides to experiences with cyberbullying. The connection between suicide and interpersonal aggression is certainly nothing new, as a number of studies have documented the association between bullying and suicide. Sameer and I have a paper coming out in the coming months that explores the relationship between bullying (both traditional and cyber) and suicidal ideation and attempts. We find that those who experience bullying (and those who bully) report higher levels of suicidal ideation and are more likely to have attempted suicide. Quantitative research proves the link between cyberbullying and suicide Cyberbullying Research Center, 11-11-2009, “Cyberbullicide,” http://cyberbullying.us/blog/cyberbullicide-the-relationship-between-cyberbullying-and-suicide-among- youth.html One major outcome that we have seen in recent years has been the increase in suicides related to an experience with bullying. As a point of reference, in 2004, suicide was the third-leading cause of deaths among those between the ages of 10 and 24. Even though suicide rates have decreased 28.5 percent between 1990 and 2004 among this age group, upward trends were identified in the 10- to 19-year-old age group in 2003-2004 (the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Though research involving traditional bullying and suicide is plentiful, empirical research involving cyberbullying and suicide is sparse. We just got word that a research paper we submitted to the journal Archives of Suicide Research has just been accepted for publication. Its general focus is the phenomenon of cyberbullicide, which we define as “suicide indirectly or directly influenced by experiences with online aggression” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). We’ll be posting a new fact sheet summarizing the research soon, but it details the empirical link we have uncovered between suicidal thoughts/actions and online victimization. Cyberbullying is confirmed to have caused suicides Make A Difference For Kids, non profit organization, 2010, “Cyberbullying,” http://www.makeadifferenceforkids.org/cyberbullying.html The effects of cyberbullying are not limited to hurt feelings. Research suggests that victims of cyberbullying respond much like traditional bullying victims in terms of negative emotions, such as feeling sad, anxious, and having lower self-esteem. When these negative emotions aren’t dealt with properly, victims may resort to deliquency or suicide. * Online victims are eight times more likely to report carrying a weapon to school in the last 30 days than non-bullied victims * Cyberbullying has led to at least 4 cases of suicide in the United States and many more abroad. Suicide related to cyberbullying is called “cyberbullycide” West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Should Be A Crime Cyberbullying should be illegal Rachel Carbonell, 4-9-2010, “Law falling behind cyber bullying trend,” ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/09/2868817.htm Professor Cross says she believes the solution to cyber bullying will come from schools, but she says legislation is also important. "Our laws are miles behind the behaviours that young people are engaged in so if people are relying on regulations or a regulatory environment to stop this behaviour, I think that it will be very ineffective in the short term," she said. Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg also wants specific cyber-bullying laws, but in the meantime he says that children need to be taught good cyber citizenship. "Many young people hide behind a keyboard and there is this phenomenon of digital Dutch courage, where kids will say and do things online that they'd never do in real life," he said. Cyberbullying should be a separate offense to avoid using sex offender laws Rachel Carbonell, 4-9-2010, “Law falling behind cyber bullying trend,” ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/09/2868817.htm Mr Nicholson, now the chair of the National Centre Against Bullying, which is convening a conference on bullying in Melbourne, says there needs to be more specific cyber-bullying laws. "There is a very strong argument that it should be considered a specific offence," he said. "You need to have some firm framework in which people can operate and know what they can and can't do. "In the state system, you tend to get it in the stalking area and you may also with some of the sexually explicit communications get into breaches of pornography laws. "[This leads] to children, quite young people, being placed on sexual offences registers when yet it is some stupid piece of adolescent behaviour that has nothing to do with the sort of behaviour that those registers are aimed at." Anti-bullying laws have important symbolic value Dan Harrison and Selma Milovanovic, 4-10-2010, “Make bullying a crime,” Brisbane Times, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/make-bullying-a-crime-exjudge-20100410-rz0u.html Former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson has suggested bullying be made a crime to send a strong message about society's disapproval. Professor Nicholson, now the chair of the National Centre Against Bullying, said making bullying a crime would be a powerful signal. ''People have said 'you've always had bullying, you're always going to have bullying' and really haven't appreciated that it is something that's insidious and dangerous,'' he told Fairfax Media. Advertisement: Story continues below ''Repetitive denigration and bullying-type behaviour towards a person I think is equally as damaging as physically attacking them. It might even drive them to suicide in cases. It certainly has an enormous effect on kids at school.'' Professor Nicholson said he would not want to see such a law used to prosecute offenders on a large scale. ''I think it should be reserved for the very serious cases.'' But he said such a law could have great symbolic value, in a similar manner to laws introduced in New Zealand and elsewhere that forbid parents from smacking their children. ''The idea of that was not to prosecute parents for smacking their kids, but to say 'look, the law does not regard this sort of behaviour as acceptable'.'' West Coast 2010 December PF

Schools Can’t Stop Cyberbullying Schools can’t solve cyberbullying – no authority Stop Cyberbullying, 2010, “What Is Cyberbullying,” http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/what_is_cyberbullying_exactly.html When schools try and get involved by disciplining the student for cyberbullying actions that took place off-campus and outside of school hours, they are often sued for exceeding their authority and violating the student's free speech right. They also, often lose. Schools can be very effective brokers in working with the parents to stop and remedy cyberbullying situations. They can also educate the students on cyberethics and the law. If schools are creative, they can sometimes avoid the claim that their actions exceeded their legal authority for off-campus cyberbullying actions. We recommend that a provision is added to the school's acceptable use policy reserving the right to discipline the student for actions taken off-campus if they are intended to have an effect on a student or they adversely affect the safety and well-being of student while in school. This makes it a contractual, not a constitutional, issue. Schools will be reluctant to stop cyberbullying – concerns over free speech Stop Cyberbullying, 2010, “Offsite Internet activities and schools,” http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/educators/offsite_internet_activities_and_schools.html Cases have challenged the school’s authority in many states and federal jurisdictions under constitutional and procedural grounds. And the decisions conflict. There is some guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on free speech issues in schools, but the last definitive case was decided during the Vietnam War. Most others issues will be resolved by lower courts and the law will vary depending on the state or federal district or circuit in which the school is located. So, before taking action it is essential that the school district seeks advice from knowledgeable counsel in this field. The normal school district lawyer may not have the requisite level of expertise to advise on this, and a constitutional or cyber-free speech lawyer may have to be retained. Schools can’t sufficiently check cyberbullying Jan Hoffman, 6-27-2010, “Online bullies pull schools into the fray,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html?pagewanted=all Schools these days are confronted with complex questions on whether and how to deal with cyberbullying, an imprecise label for online activities ranging from barrages of teasing texts to sexually harassing group sites. The extent of the phenomenon is hard to quantify. But one 2010 study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, an organization founded by two criminologists who defined bullying as "willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers, said one in five middle-school students had been affected. Affronted by cyberspace’s escalation of adolescent viciousness, many parents are looking to schools for justice, protection, even revenge. But many educators feel unprepared or unwilling to be prosecutors and judges. Often, school district discipline codes say little about educators’ authority over student cellphones, home computers and off-campus speech. Reluctant to assert an authority they are not sure they have, educators can appear indifferent to parents frantic with worry, alarmed by recent adolescent suicides linked to bullying. West Coast 2010 December PF

Current Bullying Remedies Are Insufficient Current laws on bullying don’t cover cyberbullying Jan Hoffman, 6-27-2010, “Online bullies pull schools into the fray,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html?pagewanted=all According to the Anti-Defamation League, although 44 states have bullying statutes, fewer than half offer guidance about whether schools may intervene in bullying involving “electronic communication,” which almost always occurs outside of school and most severely on weekends, when children have more free time to socialize online. A few states say that school conduct codes must explicitly prohibit off- campus cyberbullying; others imply it; still others explicitly exclude it. Some states say that local districts should develop cyberbullying prevention programs but the states did not address the question of discipline. Court precedents are too contradictory to use current laws against cyberbullying Jan Hoffman, 6-27-2010, “Online bullies pull schools into the fray,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html?pagewanted=all Judges are flummoxed, too, as they wrestle with new questions about protections on student speech and school searches. Can a student be suspended for posting a video on YouTube that cruelly demeans another student? Can a principal search a cellphone, much like a locker or a backpack? It’s unclear. These issues have begun their slow climb through state and federal courts, but so far, rulings have been contradictory, and much is still to be determined. Even if current jurisdiction could be used, administrators won’t feel empowered in the status quo Jan Hoffman, 6-27-2010, “Online bullies pull schools into the fray,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html?pagewanted=all Many principals hesitate to act because school discipline codes or state laws do not define cyberbullying. But Bernard James, an education law scholar at Pepperdine University, said that administrators interpreted statutes too narrowly: “Educators are empowered to maintain safe schools,” Professor James said. “The timidity of educators in this context of emerging technology is working to the advantage of bullies.” Whether suspension is appropriate is also under discussion. Elizabeth Englander, a psychology professor at Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts and founder of the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center, believes that automatic discipline for cyberbullies is wrong-headed. “We tend to think that if there’s no discipline, there’s no reaction,” she said. “But discipline should never be the only thing we consider in these cases. There are many things we can do with children first to guide and teach them about behavior and expectations.” West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Not Free Speech Courts are already ruling that cyberbullying isn’t free speech Kim Zetter, 3-18-2010, “Cyberbulling Threats Are Not Protected Speech,” Wired, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/cyberbullying-not-protected/ A California appeals court ruled this week that threatening posts made by readers of a website are not protected free speech, allowing a case charging the posters with hate crimes and defamation to proceed. The case raises fundamental questions about cyberbullying and the line between online speech and hate crimes. In her dissenting opinion, Judge Frances Rothschild said the appellate court ruling “alters the legal landscape to the severe detriment of First Amendment rights.” Free speech doesn’t give you the right to harass others – cyberbullying is still not okay Cyberbullying Research Center, 4-27-2010, “Is Cyberbulling Simply An Expression of Free Speech?” http://cyberbullying.us/blog/is-cyberbullying-simply-an-expression-of-free-speech.html I thought others might be interested in my perspective, so I post my response here. Freedom of speech is an important issue and it is vital that we protect that freedom. We have the right to say a lot of things in the United States. But we don’t have the right to threaten, harass, intimidate, or otherwise mistreat someone. Moreover, even though the Supreme Court famously said that students ‘do not shed their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate’ (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969), they also said that the rules are different at schools for educators who have a responsibility to maintain an appropriate and safe learning environment at school (see, for example, Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser, 1986). So it is easier to restrict student speech at school than student speech away from school. Of course this creates many problems from a cyberbullying standpoint to the extent that much cyberbullying occurs away from school, but clearly could significantly affect the school. There are many legal questions that remain unanswered or have been answered differently depending on various lower court rulings. Cyberbullying legislation can be crafted to avoid free speech concerns Linda Thomas, freelance journalist, 2-8-2007, “Cyberbullying vs. free speech,” Seattle PI, http://blog.seattlepi.com/educatingmom/archives/111355.asp Today a cyberbullying bill, which would add electronic intimidation to anti-bullying legislation passed in 2002, is scheduled for a Senate committee vote. Delete bullyingThe bill would apply only to electronic intimidation sent from school property. A similar measure failed a few weeks ago in Arkansas. Their bill defined cyberbullying as threatening or intimidating students using Web sites, chat rooms, text messaging or other online means. It failed because Arkansas lawmakers were concerned about students' First Amendment rights. An amended bill, which removed the words "intimidating or threatening," made it through a Senate committee yesterday. I'm a biggie-big-bigtime supporter of free speech. But bullies who intimidate, threaten, harass - while hiding behind computers and other electronic devices - should not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment too. West Coast 2010 December PF

Con West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Overhyped Cyberbullying is overhyped Mike Masnick, 10-25-2010, “Student’s Off-Campus YouTube Bullying,” TechDirt, http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=cyber+bullying&edition=techdirt There's been a lot of talk and hype about "cyberbullying," these days. There's no doubt, of course, that school bullying is something that many kids have to deal with, and it's not enjoyable at all. In the age of the internet, of course, that bullying can not only be more intense, but it can go much further than it used to, following you into your home and being exposed to a much wider audience. And yet, it still feels like some of the moral panic around "cyberbullying" is blown totally out of proportion. The fact is, some people out there are going to be jerks, and part of growing up, unfortunately, is learning to deal with jerks. That doesn't make it a good experience, but you simply can't outlaw being a jerk, no matter how hard you try. In fact, one of the things that's missing in so many of these discussions about "cyberbullying" is the First Amendment, which protects speech you don't like, just as much as the speech you do. Now, obviously, it is possible to go over the line, into a threat or causing real harm, but we do need to be careful not to get so over-protective that we forget that even most jerky behavior is protected free speech. “Mean girl” cyberbullying is overhyped Mike Males and Meda-Chesney Lind, 4-1-2010, “The Myth of Mean Girls,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02males.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss However, many of the news reports and inflamed commentaries have gone beyond expressing outrage at the teenagers involved and instead invoked such cases as evidence of a modern epidemic of “mean girls” that adults simply fail to comprehend. Elizabeth Scheibel, the district attorney in the South Hadley case, declined to charge school officials who she said were aware of the bullying because of their “lack of understanding of harassment associated with teen dating relationships.” A People magazine article headlined “Mean Girls” suggested that a similar case two years ago raised “troubling questions” about “teen violence” and “cyberspace wars.” Again and again, we hear of girls hitting, brawling and harassing. But this panic is a hoax. We have examined every major index of crime on which the authorities rely. None show a recent increase in girls’ violence; in fact, every reliable measure shows that violence by girls has been plummeting for years. Major offenses like murder and robbery by girls are at their lowest levels in four decades. Fights, weapons possession, assaults and violent injuries by and toward girls have been plunging for at least a decade. Their evidence is an overreaction to isolated incidents Mark Gibbs, 5-7-2009, “Cyberbullying? No, it’s just bullying,” Network World, http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/051109-backspin.html Now why was this bill proposed? Well, it all hinges on the sad case of Megan Meier, a Missouri teenager, who, in 2006, committed suicide at the age of 13 because of "cyberbullying". The actual bully in the case turned out to be the mother of a former friend of Meier's (Meier was under psychiatric care at the time, suffering from attention deficit disorder and depression). The vehicle used for the bullying was MySpace. When this case emerged the media hype machine swung into gear and the "cyber" side of the issue was inflated out of all proportion to reality. And, of course, almost immediately every politico worth their salt was lining up to demand greater controls on social media. I am constantly amazed at how people -- otherwise sensible, articulate people -- as well as those who should just know better, will West Coast 2010 December PF preface anything and everything with "cyber" as if it confers more depth and profundity than the unadorned word or phrase. West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Laws Hurt Free Speech Cyberbullying laws are overbroad and hurt free speech rights Mark Gibbs, 5-7-2009, “Cyberbullying? No, it’s just bullying,” Network World, http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/051109-backspin.html I'm all for laws that will make our culture safer, particularly where children are concerned, but here we have an attempt to frame a context for dealing with "cyberbullying" that has insane ramifications, making it a classic demonstration of the law of unintended consequences. As Volokh points out, the bill is "breathtakingly broad … [and] would criminalize a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment … if passed into law (and, if it survives constitutional challenge) it looks almost certain to be misused." To put that another way, by sponsoring this bill Rep. Sanchez and friends have demonstrated a willful indifference to Constitutional law and common sense. It's time that the whole "cyber" nonsense was retired and lawmakers stopped treating events that aren't unique to the 'Net or computers and communications technology as special cases in what I can only assume to be callous attempts to gain political leverage. Anti-bullying laws infringe on free speech and are redundant Wendy Kaminer, lawyer and author, Guggenheim Fellow, 3-30-2010, “Bullying and the Phoebe Prince Case,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/03/bullying-and-the-phoebe- prince-case/38221/ Do these charges vindicate anti-bullying legislation? Not necessarily. If the prosecution of Prince's alleged tormenters is merited, it suggests that laws against bullying may be redundant, at best. At worst, (and often) anti-bullying regulation is overbroad, exerting control over students outside of school and infringing unduly on speech, especially when it addresses cyber-bullying. The rash of recent cases targeting student online speech (especially speech critical of administrators), the use of child porn laws to prosecute teens for sexting, and the scandalous use of webcams to spy on students at home should make us skeptical of legislation aimed at curbing verbal "abuses." Unprecedented freedom to speak and opportunities to disseminate speech (for better and worse) have naturally resulted in some harsh crackdowns on speech. Cyberbullying laws infringe on free speech rights Steven Kotler, 5-14-2009, “Cyberbullying Bill Could Ensnare Free Speech Rights,” Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/cyberbullying-ensnare-free-speech-rights/ A bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., is designed to prevent cyberbullying, making it punishable by a fine and up to two years in prison. But at least one blogger is calling the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act the "Censorship Act of 2009" -- and many free speech advocates say its language is too broad and that it would act as judge and jury to determine whether there is significant evidence to prove that one person "cyberbullied" another. "We have existing harassment statutes in all 50 states that already cover this problem," says Parry Aftab, a lawyer and Internet security expert who's at the forefront of the anti-cyberbullying movement. "We don't need Linda Sanchez's law." Even Sanchez's attempt to define the term "cyberbullying" poses problems, said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. "The bill defines it as 'using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior,' but what does 'severe, hostile and repeated behavior' mean?" he asked. West Coast 2010 December PF

Status Quo Laws Solve Cyberbullying Status quo laws can already be used to prosecute cyberbullying Marisa Donelan, 2-7-2010, “Cyber-Bullying on Increase,” All Business, http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/families-children-family/13875874-1.html Children also need to be aware if they're threatening someone or harassing someone online, they can be charged with a crime, Stillman said. "Kids are good about saving things, and they've come in with documentation of what the other person said," she said. "I don't think they have a good clear understanding of when it comes down to criminal charges." Randel said although it may be painful to save insults -- printing out and keeping track of every threat or bullying message in order to "build a case." Police departments can also retrieve text messages, he said. Bullying laws are redundant and ineffective Darrell Dawsey, 4-9-2010, “Thoughts about anti-bullying laws,” Time, http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/04/09/on-anti-bullying-laws/ But much as I do with hate-crime legislation, I wonder how much more we need to add to already- existing laws designed to prevent and punish these kinds of cruel and unrelenting attacks. I don't doubt the intentions of anyone who backs such laws, but I do wonder at what point it becomes feel-good grandstanding rather than effective legislative remediation. I'm not the only one, either... Status quo laws are already sufficient to deal with bullying Darrell Dawsey, 4-9-2010, “Thoughts about anti-bullying laws,” Time, http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/04/09/on-anti-bullying-laws/ I don't want to seem too quickly dismissive of any initiatives aimed at protecting the vulnerable. Nor do I want to give the impression that I think the issue is somehow undeserving of legislative attention. It's not, especially not when young people are dying. Bullying is a far bigger deal than just "kids being kids." But there are already laws against harassment, stalking, assault, battery and any number of other terrible acts that could be construed as bullying. And while I appreciate the calls for stronger legal safeguards, I just hope that tragedies like these suicides will help prompt school officials and others looking to protect young people to do more with the tools they already have. West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Legislation Would Be Harmful Cyberbullying legislation is totally unnecessary and impractical Steven Kotler, 5-14-2009, “Cyberbullying Bill Could Ensnare Free Speech Rights,” Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/cyberbullying-ensnare-free-speech-rights/ Even advocates of child safety on the Internet say the bill is impractical, at best. "Even if you wanted to, you can't legislate against meanness," said Larry Magid, co-director of ConnectSafely.org. "It's contextual. If I call you fat, maybe I was bullying, or maybe I was concerned about your health, or maybe it was a relatively innocuous slight." The bill's critics also note that the law is intended to protect minors from minors, but that doesn't show up in its language. As written now, the bill would also apply to adults, says John Morris, general counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology. And, he said: "It's not clear from any of the data that cyberbullying among adults is an issue." Morris said cyberbullying is a local problem best solved at the local level. "Most research suggests cyberbullying is most appropriately handled with more education, in school. It's hard to imagine how federalizing the matter accomplishes this," he said. Cyberbullying legislation distract focus from more severe forms of bullying Wendy Kaminer, lawyer and author, Guggenheim Fellow, 3-30-2010, “Bullying and the Phoebe Prince Case,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/03/bullying-and-the-phoebe- prince-case/38221/ But school officials who ignore obvious and extreme abuse of one student by small gang of teenage vipers are probably unfit to serve in schools; it's not clear that the problem of incompetent or grossly negligent officials can be solved with legislation. Focusing on cyber-bullying, in particular, may even distract administrators from addressing actual harassment and stalking of the sort allegedly suffered by Prince. It can also provide an excuse for inaction. South Hadley School Superintendent Gus A. Sayer initially tried blaming Prince's suicide on cyber-bullying: "The real problem now is the texting stuff and the cyber-bullying,'' he told The Boston Globe, back in January. "Some kids can be very mean towards one another using that medium.'' Sayer has, so far, declined to comment on the criminal charges, but the Huffington Post seized on his previous statement in its report today (Match 29th) on the Prince case: "Cyberbullies Charged with Harassing Phoebe Prince, Teen Who Killed Herself After Rape," its headline sensationally and inaccurately declares. As District Attorney Scheibel stressed (in a widely reported remark), the campaign against Phoebe Prince was "primarily conducted on school grounds during school hours and while school was in session." Old-fashioned, in person harassment and stalking -- not cyberbullying -- allegedly drove Prince to suicide, and, if these allegations are true, then old-fashioned criminal laws can bring her abusers to justice. Cyberbullying bills are unconstitutional Steven Kotler, 5-14-2009, “Cyberbullying Bill Could Ensnare Free Speech Rights,” Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/cyberbullying-ensnare-free-speech-rights/ But even if the bill makes it through Congress, most of the experts interviewed for this article were uncertain it would hold up in court. "Not only is Sanchez's bill unconstitutional," Volokh said, "but with our existing laws, criminal harassment (as opposed to sexual) is not a well defined term. Definitions vary from state to state, but generally it's threatening, persistent communication. There are no anti-mind- game-harassment laws out there." West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Is Not Distinct From Regular Bullying Cyberbullying is the same as regular bullying Mark Gibbs, 5-7-2009, “Cyberbullying? No, it’s just bullying,” Network World, http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/051109-backspin.html Take "cyberbullying". How is that factually different from everyday bullying? If you think that this turn of phrase is somehow justified then why don't we start slicing and dicing the contexts even more assiduously? We'd have telephone-bullying, cell phone-bullying, shouting-at-someone-on-the-street- bullying, and staring-in-a-mean-way-bullying. It's the act and its consequences that matter, not the medium. Cyberbullying is just an outgrowth of regular bullying Jim Gibson, 4-16-2010, “Cyber-bullying on the rise,” Vancouver Sun, http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Cyber+bullying+rise/2915031/story.html Cyber-bullying is much the same as regular bullying, but without the physical presence, says the University of Victoria's Bonnie Leadbeater. It's intentionally hurting someone by teasing, intimidation, rumour or exclusion. "These are the kids who are repeatedly harassed and bullied and end up killing themselves," Leadbeater says. Cyber-bullying is happening more and more, according to Darren Laur, a Victoria, B.C., police officer who, as a personal protection consultant, often speaks at schools. "It's the big thing now. Back in our day, it used to be the bathroom wall," Laur says, referring to the way reputations were once damaged at school. Cyberbullying isn’t a new problem Tiffani N. Garlic, 10-17-2010, “Dad uses son’s suicide to show dangers of cyber-bullying,” New Jersey Star-Ledger, http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2010/10/dad_uses_sons_suicide_to_show.html Cyber-bullying, Halligan said, is nothing new. “What’s at the core here is the same old problem we’ve had for generations, called bullying,” he said. “The only difference now is that we have technology that enables the behavior, but at the core it’s the same problem.” According to the 2009 New Jersey Student Health Survey, which is conducted every two years, one in six or 16.6 percent of high school students were electronically bullied during the past 12 months. West Coast 2010 December PF

Parents Can Check Cyberbullying Parents can intervene to protect kids from cyberbullying Tracy Mooney, 10-14-2010, “Cyberbullying, Teen Suicide and Technology,” McAfee Blog, http://blogs.mcafee.com/consumer/cyber-security-mom/cyberbullying-teen-suicide-and-technology Since writing the letter about cyberbullying, I have seen many posts about the recent suicides. They all had a slightly different take on the subject. I have read a few that said that it is not a technology issue, which as a parent left me feeling a bit defensive. It is a technology issue – kids are using computers, phones, webcams, gaming devices to communicate in some negative ways – right? So before I got angry, I stepped back for a moment. Why are they saying that technology is not the issue? Well, for every device there is something parents can do. –For computers, there is “parental control” (for lack of a better word) software that parents can install (www.mcafee.com/familyprotection). –For phones, parents can simply ask the phone company to block features, callers, texting, etc – or for very advanced phones there are parental control apps to install. –For newer gaming devices all come with some type of parental controls built right in – parents just need to turn them on. Even games with inappropriate content all have ratings alerting parents. Parents can check cyberbullying Tracy Mooney, 10-14-2010, “Cyberbullying, Teen Suicide and Technology,” McAfee Blog, http://blogs.mcafee.com/consumer/cyber-security-mom/cyberbullying-teen-suicide-and-technology But we, as parents, need to know what to do and how to turn it on. We need to know what we are protecting our kids from and teaching them not to do. Bullying is not new. It has been around probably as long as there have been humans. What is new, is the way bullying is being done. It is really easy in the U.S. to point the finger at someone else and say this is the fault of “X”. It is the fault of the technology creator. It is the fault of the schools for not intervening. It is the fault of the social network for not making the website safe for kids. The truth is that for every piece of technology, the technology is there to help parents protect their kids. Commonsense interventions by parents can protect kids from cyberbullying Cyberbullying Research Center, 5-11-2010, “Should Parents Ban Access to Facebook?” http://cyberbullying.us/blog/should-parents-ban-access-to-facebook.html It is a much better strategy for parents to carefully express their concerns about these environments and teach youth how to be responsible online. Tell them that it isn’t a good idea to accept as friends those who they do not know and trust in real life. Demonstrate the dangers of posting too much personal information online. Show them how to use the privacy settings. Provide them with examples from the media where teens have gotten into trouble for misusing social networks. Our research suggests that teens are listening and improving social networking practices! Print this out and give it to them. Odds are they will be just fine if they abide by these commonsense guidelines. West Coast 2010 December PF

Schools Can Check Cyberbullying School policies can fight cyberbullying Parry Aftab, Stop Cyberbullying, 2010, “guide for schools on cyberbullying,” http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/educators/guide_for_schools.html While taking disciplinary action against a student that does something outside of school hours and off school grounds may exceed a school’s normal authority and land the school in legal hot water, doing so with the consent of the parties is not. Most schools have an acceptable use policy. And the smart ones have it signed by the parents and the students. It typically deals with what is and is not permitted use of the schools technology and computer systems. And, it is a legal contract binding the parents and the school (and the students themselves once they are of legal contracting age). By adding a provision that covers dangerous or abusive actions by a student that directly affects another student, the school itself or its staff, the school now has authority to take appropriate action to deal with the dangerous or abusive conduct. It is the impact on the school, its safety and the safety and well-being of its staff and students that will trigger the school’s authority, not whether the actions took place from a school computer within school hours. Laying out the problems and the impact of these problems on others at the school and the need to protect students, staff and the educational environment of the school is the place to start. Then, add an express consent to the school’s taking action in the event it deems the matter to have an adverse impact on safety and the welfare of students, staff and the educational environment. It’s that simple. But, as in all things legal, the devil is in the details. Schools are taking steps to education students on cyberbullying Chris Pirillo, online tech expert, 11-1-2010, “Public Schools Required to Teach,” http://chris.pirillo.com/public-schools-required-to-teach-anti-cyberbullying-practices/ Many public schools in the United States will soon be required to educate students about the dangers of cyberbullying and how to conduct themselves online. All schools which are funded with the Schools and Libraries Program – otherwise known as E-Rate – fund will be bound by these regulations. Grantees are already required to run some kind of online safety education class and to deploy filters “to protect students from accessing inappropriate content,” as stated by the Federal Communications Commission. Schools need to educate students to stop bullying Mary Elizabeth Williams, staffwriter, 6-28-2010, “How schools can really fight cyberbullying,” Salon, http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/06/28/middle_school_cyber_bullies But making emotional intelligence an educational priority equips the community as a whole to deal with bullying -- it creates social sanctions against it, and it lays groundwork so that kids have their own inner resources for handling it when it happens. It can't be quantified on a chart; it can't boost your child's SAT score, so it's not as easy a sell to cash-strapped school districts or Ivy League ambitious parents. But then again, maybe it might pay for itself in reduced lawsuits and a whole lot less grief from families of kids who'd otherwise be driven to depression, violence and suicide. As it turns out, those "soft skills" -- like learning how to not be a creep -- that get short shrift when talking about the all importance of math scores -- have been proven incredibly valuable in equipping kids for the work place. And in the debate over what the Times defined as "the responsibility of the family, the police or the schools," the most basic weapon fighting the problem seems right in front of us -- a powerful body of students themselves. West Coast 2010 December PF

Impossible To Stop Bullying Criminalizing bullying is ineffective if not accompanied by educating people on tolerance Allison Roy, 10-14-2010, “Cyber-bullying,” Medill Reports, http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=170454 Gov. Pat Quinn expanded the state’s anti-bullying law last June to include the creation of a 15-member prevention task force on school bullying, which must submit a report to the governor by March 1. The law also requires schools to include a policy that directly addresses the treatment of bullying situations and offer programs designed to prevent gang activity. The law defines bullying as any pervasive or severe verbal or physical act, including written and electronic communication, that causes a student to feel unsafe or negatively impacts a student’s mental or academic well-being. “I think to just focus on the bullying misses the point,” Kling said. “Clearly we have to do a better job of educating young people on tolerance, and school administrations need to clearly outline a policy that directly addresses aggressive behavior.” Kling said in order for preventive measures to be effective, school officials need to provide students with a clear-cut definition of bullying and intervene quickly once it begins. Can’t stop bullying – victims are too afraid to come forward Allison Roy, 10-14-2010, “Cyber-bullying,” Medill Reports, http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=170454 Willard said cyber-bullying is impossible to control unless victimized students comed forward. “There’s no way they can monitor it,” she said. “Students need to feel safe to report the issue.” But according to a recent study from the Youth Voice Project at Penn State Erie, only 42 percent of 10,000 survey participants said they reported their own bullying experiences to an adult. Researchers at Iowa State University attribute this silence to a feeling of powerlessness and a fear of “tattling.” and a general belief that nothing would be done to stop it. In addition, more than half of the bullying victims surveyed said they doubted a school official would be able to help them, according to the study, which was published in May’s “International Journal of Critical Pedagogy.” Can’t prevent all cyberbullying By Parents For Parents, 2010, “Cyber-bullies,” http://www.byparents- forparents.com/cyberbullies.html Stamping out cyber-bullying is impossible. With ever-expanding technology and an often rotating cycle of bullies and targets within the complex web of adolescent relationships, pinning down one or two instigators won't necessarily solve the problem. But teaming with your school and other parents to openly and directly address the issue can - and will - help. Creating opportunities to teach all students how to recognize and handle cyber-bullying, as well as the potentially lasting dangers of such behavior, can have a profound impact on instances of bullying within your community as a whole. West Coast 2010 December PF

Cyberbullying Laws Are Unconstitutional Cyberbullying bills are unconstitutional Courtney Holliday, 11-20-2008, “MySpace-hoax trial shines light,” First Amendment Center, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20905 University of California at Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh, author of the textbook The First Amendment and Related Statutes, also criticized cyberbullying legislation, specifically the proposed Megan Meier Act. “This is clearly unconstitutional,” he wrote in a June 5, 2008, blog entry. “In Hustler v. Falwell, the Supreme Court held that even civil liability for ‘outrageous’ behavior that recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully causes ‘severe emotional distress’ violates the First Amendment when it’s about a public figure and on a matter of public concern. Many, though not all, lower courts have held the same whenever the statement is on a matter of public concern, even about a private figure.” Cyberbullying restrictions unconstitutionally limit free speech Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law Prof, 6-5-2008, http://volokh.com/posts/1212694919.shtml This is clearly unconstitutional. In Hustler v. Falwell, the Supreme Court held that even civil liability for “outrageous” (not just “severe”) behavior that recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully causes “severe emotional distress” (not just “substantial emotional distress”) violates the First Amendment when it’s about a public figure and on a matter of public concern. Many, though not all, lower courts have held the same whenever the statement is on a matter of public concern, even about a private figure. I would go further and reject the emotional distress tort altogether whenever it’s premised on the content of speech that falls outside an existing exception, i.e., speech that isn’t threatening, factually false, or the like. But in any case even the specific holding in Hustler is enough to make the statute facially overbroad. (Given the Hustler reasoning, the requirement that the speech be electronic, repeated, or intended to cause substantial distress doesn’t adequately narrow the law: "[I]n the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment.... [E]ven when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected by the First Amendment....") Existing telephone harassment laws have their problems in some cases, but at least they limit themselves to one-to-one speech to the person who is being “harassed,” and don’t interfere with the speaker’s ability to communicate with willing listeners in the public at large. This law has no such limitation. Its reference to blogs and websites strongly suggests that it deliberately addresses one-to-many publishing media as well as one-to-one email and text messaging -- but even without that reference, it would literally cover any “communication,” with no limitation that the communication be sent specifically to the distressed person. Appalling. Congress agrees its unconstitutional Orin Kerr, 10-2-2009, “Cyberbullying Bill,” Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com/2009/10/02/cyberbullying-bill-gets-chilly-reception/ “Bullying has gone electronic,” Sanchez testified before the Subcommitttee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. “This literally means kids can be bullies at any hour of the day or the night, or even in the victims’ own home.” From the outset of the 90-minute hearing, however, committee members from the left and the right said they thought the measure was an unconstitutional breach of free speech. “We need to be extremely careful before heading down this path,” Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia and the committee’s chairman, said during the hearing’s opening moment.