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.'"

Comments

School Censorship

[eldavojohn]

Surely schools can't control what kids say to one another?

I don't know about that.

When I was in high school, I was blatantly told that I didn't have the full rights of an adult until I was 18. I don't know if this is true or not. I actually still don't know if this is true. But let me relate the events that I witnessed and took part in while attending a small town high school in Minnesota.

The grade ahead of me was full of punks. I don't mean 'punks' in the derogatory term, I mean punks that accepted anybody, didn't drink much, tried to skateboard, talked about anarchy, didn't cause too much trouble but liked their music loud and fast. Now, the grade before me had access to an industrial copying machine via one of their parents. What resulted was a 'zine. A punk zine for a school that was often folded 8 1/2 x 11 pages stapled together with images, music reviews, articles & basically anything and all things punk. Including, but not limited to, taking it to the man. The zine was fifty cents to cover copying costs.

I loved these people, everyone else was a tightly knit clique of 'in' crowds where the punks didn't care if I listened to The Beatles & read Sci-Fi Fantasy & lived in the country.

The zine was considered contraband by the teachers. If they found it on your person, they gave you detention. One of the articles in an early edition criticized the entire student body of the school. Foul language was not omitted in this underground publication. First amendment right? The teachers didn't think so.

Lastly, the T-Shirts that people would try to wear were often banned. You were made to turn them inside out or go home with detention. Shirts that said "F You" or even "I hate this hick town." were grounds for detention. In the end, the punks made artwork and screened it onto shirts where it looked like a cool design but if you hooked your thumb and forefinger in it and pulled it down to cover up the inner four inches or so, it said "FUCK YOU." That way, they could choose to display the image whenever they wanted to and a teacher wasn't around. They weren't threatening people with it or harassing people, it was just their response to life and everything. The teachers found it offensive (and some of the dimmer students probably did too) so it was censored.

So to answer your question about schools censoring what the students can say to each other, I experienced that prior to being 18 quite a bit.

Re:School Censorship

[SatanicPuppy]

Sure, In Loco Parentis..."In place of parents" means they can do whatever your parents can do to you...On school property.

The real issue here is whether or not they have the right to go after you for things that you're doing off school property. In my mind, that's a definite no; their power relationship is governed by their location. At school, sure. Out of school? What's the theory behind that, and where does it end?

You're moving into a serious nanny state if you allow your educators to effectively assert control over your kids outside of a school environment. I understand why they feel the need...Lot of parents aren't holding up their end, so the schools feel like, in order to get something done, they have to do it themselves. I appreciate the frustration. However, it's a hugely bad precedent.

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 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, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.