Cyberbullying Laws Raise Free Speech Questions

Chad_DeVoss writes "States across the country are working on laws to rein in cyberbullying, claiming that electronic harassment has led even to the suicides of some children. But what about the First Amendment? Surely schools can't control what kids say to one another? It's an easy argument to make, but the reality is more complicated. From the article: 'The issue is further complicated by questions about whether cyberbullying takes place on school property or not. School officials do not generally have control over what students do outside of school, but, as the First Amendment Center reports, even this issue is complicated. Students who threaten or harass other students using school equipment or during school time can most likely be sanctioned, but even students who do such things from home face the possibility of school discipline under the 'substantial disruption of the educational environment' ruling from the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case from 1969.'"

That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[maynard]

Laws regulating conduct cannot possibly be enforced in an anonymous public sphere. What's needed is a trusted computing system that tracks who uses a computer, when, and what they're doing. Then software could limit activities to what's legal and appropriate! We're almost there...

- Unique hardware identifiers on all CPUs and motherboards

- Laws that make it illegal to circumvent security systems

- Laws which force ISPs to track customer communications

Don't worry. We'll make the Internet safe for you and your children. And the SonyBMIMicrosoftUniversalMGM corpglomerate.

Not for the courts

[pubjames]

Surely bullying should be dealt with at the level of teachers/parents? Putting these things into law just seems like asking for trouble - potentially making the minor incidents of growing up into major issues that will scar children for life.

What's the issue?

[koreaman]

Why can't they just use whatever standards they've always used, if any, to regulate off-school speech? THe fact that the speech occurs online shouldn't change anything.

Freedom has layers

[pzs]

1st Amendment rights is one thing, but a variety of laws restrict freedom of speech if it slanders, intimidates or incites others. This is true in the real world and probably, as has already been pointed out, this applies even more in schools where you're trying to teach children to be responsible citizens.

That's the problem with trumpeting "freedom" as a great virtue. Too much freedom means that you would have to legalise a variety of evils such as child abuse and racial discrimination. Freedom to do something needs the proviso that it does not restrict the freedom of others, which is a bit more of a subtle concept.

Peter

Usurping Parental Role...Again

[blueZhift]

While it may be perfectly legal for schools to censor students and sanction them on school time and with regard to school equipment, they should keep their noses out of what students say and do beyond the campus. Clearly, off campus issues are the realm of the students' parents and family. When schools start trying to assert authority outside of the school, it is just another intrusion by the state on parental authority and responsibility. And with respect to free speech, speech that makes direct threats against another person is not protected anyway. We already have laws covering that as a form of assault. There is no need for new and likely unconstitutional laws on this matter. Enforce the laws already on the books and let parents do what they are supposed to be doing.

Bullying?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Would you let another adult verbally torture someone? I don't think so.

Bullying is at best abuse and at worse it is outright torture. If we force children to goto school (and hence come into contact with kids who will bully them) then we must accept that we are in a sense damning these children to things none of us should ever have to face. Your "free speech" bullshit ends the moment you start using your free speech to put someone through complete hell for kicks.

I say the second any kid is caught bullying another he is sent to a prison for children. We're way past the stage where it's a bit of verbal abuse when we constantly hear kids are carrying knives (and even guns in some cases). These people are the bullys and by the time they're 13-14 they are acting like adult criminals. So lets make them act like adults and slap them in a prison the second they cross the line between "being kids" and "outright torture".

Internet or in the real world. Bullying is torture of another human being, it should be seen as such and not "just kids messing around".

Re:Not for the courts

[Turn-X Alphonse]

News flash : This is NOT "minor incidents".

In the current "switched on era" you can be harassed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Kids can make you live in fear constantly, torture you and basicly give you scars for life all through cell phones and e-mail. Maybe you should speak to some of these people who got put through hell and tell them to "get over it".

As technology grows (and the youth of today grows up faster) we should be starting to deal with this stuff sooner.

Re:Not for the courts

[Anonymous Cowpat]

if death threats are illegal anyway, you don't need new laws. If death threats aren't illegal anyway, why should they suddenly become illegal for the specific case of them being propagated through the internet?

Bill of Rights

[hsmith]

I'd like to know where in the bill of rights there is a qualifier that says you must be above a certain age to have your god given rights given to you. Yes, they may be under age but they still have every damned right that adults have. This is just the govt's way of creating submissive idiots that don't understand their rights. "We never were able to say what we wanted" will continue into adult hood. Much like how recent high school graduates thought the 1st amendment gave "too much freedom"

Public schooling has created a nation of "do what my gov't says" lemmings.

First amendment has little to do with it

[sesquipedalian_one]

Free speech, what a crock! Not all forms of verbal behavior are covered by the first amendment. Is sexual harassment licensed by free speech? The real issue hear is the scope of the school's powers. Clearly, they are entitled to try to stop bullying that occurs on school property. We would be outraged if they didn't, whether that bullying was physical or verbal. The real question is to what extent they have they right to take action when something occurs away from school.

nothing wrong with the 1st ammendment

[FudRucker]

along with freedom of speech comes being responsible with what an individual says, why do people forget this simple rule...

Freedom demands responsibility

[bcharr2]

I am constantly surprised by the number of Americans who have grown up and enjoyed the privileges, protections, and liberties of the wealthiest and most democratic society that humanity has ever seen, only to constantly complain about how bad they have it, how terrible their country is, and how oppressed they and their freedoms are.

To people throughout most of history, the inability to have an active voice in their government, and the strong possibility that they would be imprisoned or killed for voicing dissent with said government, was oppression.

To many Americans, seeking to discipline young people who attempt to belittle and humiliate their classmates with impunity shielded by the anonymity of the internet, is oppression.

If the one thing children learn from these laws is that freedom is not given, but must be earned (even if it was the previous generations that paid the price) and that therefore it demands a certain amount of vigilance from its benefactors to steward their freedoms in a responsible manner, instead of merely exploiting their freedoms for personal satisfaction, then all the better.

Blanket laws a bad idea

[TheWoozle]

Even here on Slashdot, we see a range of reactions to this issue from "Childhood bullying is just a part of growing up" to "Any bully should be thrown in prison".

Reasonably, the response should be proportional to the offense. One child pushing another on the playground should provoke a different response than one child sending death threats to another.

As with any issue like this, blanket laws tend to remove the ability of those involved to deal with the issue in a proportional manner - instead requiring a Procrustean approach to determining what a violation is and handing out punishment.

While I share the concern over the increasing levels of school violence, and I acknowledge that children can be cruel to one another (I endured my own share of being bullied), I would caution against passing laws that remove the power of the responsible authorities (the parents and school administrators) to deal with the situation in a sane and appropriate manner.

Free Speech?

[Ogive17]

Yes, you have the right of Free Speech protected under the First Amendment.. until what you say infringes on the right of someon else, which makes your speech unprotected.

Threatening another person, in my opinion, infringes on their rights and would not be protected under the First Amendment.... even if it's done on a myspace page.

But you also can't throw the book at every kid who says something.. kids will be kids. It's definitely a fine line to walk.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[duflar]

"nowadays the geeky kids are the ones who have the power"??? are you kidding me? Parents who let their children run wild are letting their kids run wild. That's it. Knowing what your kids do is part of PARENTING. Parents have the initial and potentially the strongest influence on the behavior of their children. Everything their children do from before they are 1 week old until long after they have their children is heavily influenced by what their parents chose to do and chose to NOT do.(and how they do it.) It's pathetic how people look for other excuses to cover their own mistakes. No one ever said parenting was easy, but society grants so many rights to parents that it'd be nice if they actually had a responsibility or two along the way. Contrary to what lawmakers seem to believe, there's more to parenting than not murdering your children and not explicitly commanding them to commit crimes. There are plenty of other ways that they can (and do)screw up. If your kid kills himself/herself because of online harassment, one of the first reactions should be to investigate the parents of the deceased to see if they need to have their surviving children removed from them.

Bullshit

[iceperson]

I hear stuff like this all of the time and I can say that in the real world you don't have to put up with teasing and bullying. Lastly, bullying doesn't make victims stronger. It scars them, and many times it causes lasting trauma that can affect the victim's ability to function in the workplace. In fact, many people who have suffered long term abuse from bullies can't even have a real relationship with another human being. Not everyone is you, stop projecting your experiences and your abilities to cope on everyone else.

Re:Not for the courts

[Anonymous Cowpat]

so your argument is that we should reconsider allowing students the right to say insulting and hurtful things as free speech because they choose to exercise that more than any other section of society? ("you can only have rights so long as you don't use them").
If they're using the school internet then the school can regulate it with school rules, you don't need laws for that (other than to make the school rules legal, but that doesn't raise the severity of the issue as making the action criminally illegal would). If they're using their own internet then the school can keep it's nose out of it. If it is illegal that's a learning experience for bullies - mollycoddling them into thinking that anything they do, ever, will only be a breach of the school rules does not discourage them from doing it. On the other hand if it's not illegal then it's a learning experience for the 'victim' that nanny school rules won't always be there to protect them.

Re:Bullying?

[Undertaker43017]

Did you go to high school in the US? Bullying has been going on in high schools forever, "cyberbullying" is just adaption for modern times. Unfortunately most school districts have largely ignored it for decades. BTW, bringing knives to school is not a new problem, bullies have always brought knives (and other weapons, bats/2x4's were a favorite at my HS) to school.

While I agree no one should be subjected to verbal or physical abuse, sending the bully to prison won't work. Removing the bully from the learning environment is not the right solution, that just creates more criminals.

The problem is huge, and had school districts not ignored the problem for so long and developed effective ways of dealing with it, we wouldn't have this problem. Bullies are not getting their needs meet in some way, either the school is not challenging them enough and they are bored or they find it too challenging and are attacking kids that are "smarter" then they are. I don't believe most bullies are actually criminally psychotic and deserve to be locked up. The schools need to do a better job of meeting the needs of all students and give up on the "all size fits all model".

Re:School Censorship

[tourvil]

What state do you live in so that I know never to move there?

Re:School Censorship

[tinkertim]

Thanks for the tip on In Loco Parentis, I looked it up on Wikipedia and the excerpt below demonstrates a court case that disagrees with your point of view. I agree with you and don't believe the school should have this power, unless you're representing the school i.e. in school uniform.

I think schools are getting increasingly frustrated by a lack of parenting. I think parents are getting frustrated with economic circumstances that cause a lack of parenting, and I think kids are getting increasingly frustrated with the whole mess, especially kids from grade 8 onward.

Some schools are falling into a nasty triage. Assess quickly those who can adapt and excel, and figure out how to keep the rest of the kids from preventing 'hopefuls' from succeeding. I hate this condition but understand it.

Schools are divided into districts. Where you live in play is a very, very good indicator of what school you attend, unless of course you attend a private school. This means, no matter where you are, you *do* represent the school as once you and I represented a product of our parent's parenting.

This can and in some cases does give the school authority to monitor off campus activity and intercede [slashdot.org] if they feel they must be proactive to accomplish their goal of maintaining what little grip they have over not only the educational process, but raising other people's kids.

I don't, at all agree with this practice - but a solution to the problem is rather hard to come up with. My daughter was born Abroad, where we still reside. My immediate solution is to be present, parent her, and not put her in US public schools when the time comes. But that's only *my* solution and I realize that I have a responsibility as a citizen and parent to help come up with a more proactive and broader solution.

Some of the problems :

* Suggestions fall on deaf, jaded ears.
* There is not enough money.
* You are almost never successful telling other parents they can or should be doing a better job.
* Unemployment is growing.
* Teen culture is becoming increasingly violent as media and lack of parenting de-sensitizes them further.
* Reclusive, anti social anti empathic behavior is celebrated by media (ever see a reality show?).

I am only naming a few.

We're treating the problem in the typical western style, symptomatically - instead of as a whole broadly because the resources available to solve the issues aren't being focused and concentrated. We're nit-picking and nibbling around the edges of something that is growing bigger and bigger with every school day.

Its very difficult to change someone's thinking. Its very difficult for parents to examine everything they should be doing differently as the guilt you feel knowing you are screwing up your kid is inedible to say the least. Coming from outside of the home, such a suggestion often drives people to violence against whoever suggested it. At the least, again, deaf jaded ears.

So, how do you make being a good parent popular culture? How do you make credit card companies and banks holding otherwise effective parents at bay under a financial thumb decide that the functionality of the next few generations should userp their desire for profit? How do you convince an idiot in Washington that what he wasted on Iraq was 100x more than what would be needed to at least (start) fixing the problem?

Most importantly, how do you get people SCREAMING the same questions I just asked?

Please research those things, instead of case law. Human social networks are just like any other small world network [wikipedia.org], we are quite capible of distributed problem solving and should be employing it, especially where our children are concerned.

Please don't mistake my reply as antagonistic, it was not my intention to seem hostile.

Re:School Censorship

[cayenne8]

"in the USA, can't an organization say that if you want to join the organization, you must give up some rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? For example, if you want to join the size8 society, the society rules state basically that you must give up the right to free speech - "You can't say size8 seems nasty, you must constantly state that size8 is akin to a god on earth". And if you don't like the idea of your freedom of speech being taken away in society business, then hey, don't join the society!"

In general.....the answer is yes.

The constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech...basically state that the government cannot suppress your speech/expressions. You pretty much always free (excluding the fire in a movie house examples) to say what you want, and the govt. can't stop you. However, you can be shunned by public, as can be seen by the often stupid "political correctness" we see in current US society.

If you join a private society/club, they may indeed wish you to restrict words or actions if you want to stay a member.

The trouble with the discussion above, is this is a PUBLIC school...run by the govt. I'll give a clear example of the difference. In a public school...they cannot force you to pray or study the bible. If you are in a private school, say a catholic one....they can force you to study the bible, attend mass, etc as part of the curriculum. If you don't want to...you can quit that school and go back to public school.

I hope this helps....

Homeschooling

[Dan Slotman]

And, frankly, I do wonder why you're homeschooling your kids. You can't convince me that they are getting the education they need and deserve. Sorry.

I think both your post and the parent's post are excellent. I have one tiny quibble though. Homeschooling is a superb way to educate in a "reading, writing, and arithmetic" sense. However, it is very poor at teaching interpersonal skills, teamwork, and empathy. Homeschooling enables a child to learn to the upper limits of his or her ability, limited only by motivation (either personal or exterior)—what many people don't realize is that a homeschooled child is basically teaching themselves. In my experience as someone homeschooled from first grade through high school with significant exposure to many other homeschoolers, homeschooling works best academically for very bright or very dim students. Bright students will learn far more simply because they will cover more material than a class which needs to wait for slower students. Similarly, dim students benefit from the self-paced environment and increased personal attention available.

I got an excellent and broad education, and you would be hard-pressed to convince me that it was inferior to that of a public school. Learning from a textbook is much harder for me that learning from a lecture (particularly for the hard sciences), but homeschooling was still extremely successful. To reiterate my previous point, the disadvantages of homeschooling are not educational. They are interpersonal.