Techdirt. Stories filed under "cyberbullying"

Maryland The Latest State To Trample The First Amendment With Quixotic Attempt To Outlaw 'Cyberbullying'

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:38:56 PDT

Cyberbullying seems to be a popular moral panic point for many politicians, who are just sure that (a) it's a huge huge problem impacting lots of kids and (b) the "cyber" element somehow makes it much, much worse than everyday bullying among kids. We've seen various states like Arizona and Louisiana pass absolutely ridiculous First Amendment-destroying laws trying to stamp out the scourge of people being jerks online. All of this despite the evidence that cyberbullying is a pretty minor thing, and the laws do little to stop what actual bullying happens online.

So, given all that, Maryland appears to be the next to spit on the First Amendment with its own "anti-cyberbullying legislation," which, like the others, seems to want to outlaw being a jerk online, if that behavior is directed at a child. While the bill the Assembly passed took out some of the worst language, it still has massive problems:

While electronic annoyance of an adult becomes criminal only if it continues after a request to stop, no such triggering provision is included for behavior that may annoy a minor. (And as I read it, there is no requirement that the defendant know that the person being subjected to intentional emotional distress is a minor — engaging in a vigorous “flame war” with a Maryland resident might turn out to be criminal if the username “ParentInLinthicum” turns out to conceal a teenage user.) Exceptions are made for speech that is intended to express political views or convey information, a curious pair of exemptions in that it has long been assumed that our First Amendment protects many types of seriously annoying speech other than those two.

In the long run, these kinds of laws only serve to create massive chilling effects on speech, and will, undoubtedly, be used to cause much more trouble for other children. As Walter Olson notes:

We are supposed to support this law — and some lawmakers I admire did support it — to show that we care about children. Once on the books, however, this law will assuredly ruin the lives and futures of other kids who will be the subject of investigations and prosecutions, and not all those kids are monsters whose ruin we should accept with equanimity

Yes, bullying sucks, but passing a law that ignores the First Amendment is never going to stop kids from saying mean things to one another -- though it might just put them in hellish situations in which they're prosecuted for doing things that kids do.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Arizona Politicians Scramble To Adjust Internet Censorship Bill After The Internet Mocks Them For Being Clueless

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 Apr 2012 12:26:00 PDT

You know what's a bad sign? When you're a state legislature, and you pass what's clearly an unconstitutional law that criminalizes using technology to "annoy or offend" others -- and then you have to scramble after-the-fact to amend the bill you already passed. Yes, thanks to a rather loud public mocking of Arizona politicians for ignoring the First Amendment in its internet censorship bill, the Arizona legislature is trying to amend the bill quickly.

Here's a thought, though: if you passed a bill so bad that people around the globe are mocking you, perhaps it suggests you don't know what you're doing. At that point, shouldn't you back away from mucking with the internet, and leave that to the professionals who actually understand technology? Somehow, diving back in and pretending that this time you'll get it right doesn't inspire confidence. And, in fact, the details suggest that any amendments considered at this point will almost certainly still be First Amendment violations.

“Even so narrowed, the statute is unconstitutional. You simply cannot prohibit emails that are said to be intended to offend. That violates the First Amendment flat out,” said University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone, who specializes in constitutional law. “You can prohibit email if the recipient has requested you to stop sending them. That’s different -- but that’s not what this says.”

Still, I think the most ridiculous words of all come from Rep. Steve Farley from Phoenix whose statement on the bill is really quite stunning:

"I know people are focusing on unintended consequences of the bill, but I don’t think that's realistic," Farley said. "I think this is a wakeup call that we should be civil online and in society in general. I don’t think it's right we should ever be able to threaten violence against each other online."

I love how he doesn't explain why the unintended consequences aren't "realistic." He just insists that's the case. Of course, anyone who's actually been around policymaking (especially when it comes to technology) knows that there are always unintended consequences. And it's not hard to find unintended consequences of a bill like this that broadly outlaws "annoying" people with electronic devices.

But even more ridiculous is that second half. You don't legislate civility. We don't make a law saying you have to say "please" and "thank you." Look, some people are obnoxious jerks out there. That's not a legislative problem. Finally, his claim that people shouldn't be able to threaten violence against each other might have some weight if the bill was actually limited to people threatening violence. But it's not.

How do people like this get elected?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Arizona Internet Censorship Bill So Ridiculous, Even The MPAA And RIAA Are Against It

Mike Masnick — Tue, 3 Apr 2012 07:30:00 PDT

A new bill has passed through the Arizona state legislature that would allow for broad censorship of the internet. As with many such bills, this one is weakly "disguised" as an attempt to deal with online "bullying" and "stalking." However, as with many such attempts to outlaw "being a jerk" online, this one goes way, way too far. It says that it's unlawful to "annoy or offend" someone online, for example. The bill is so bad that even Media Coalition -- a group backed by the MPAA and the RIAA -- is arguing against it.

The specifics of the bill take an existing law meant to stop harassing phone calls and applies it broadly to the internet. As Media Coalition points out, the bill:

... takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.

As Eugene Volokh notes in his own discussion of the bill, a telephone is a one-to-one device. The internet is many-to-many, and it makes for a very different situation when you're talking about content designed to annoy or offend:

Telephones are basically one-to-one devices, so a phone call that uses profane language to offend is likely meant only to offend the one recipient, rather than to persuade or inform anyone; but computers used to post Facebook messages or send Twitter messages or post blog items can offend some listeners while persuading and informing others.
So, under the statute, posting a comment to a newspaper article — or a blog — saying that the article or post author is “fucking out of line” would be a crime: It’s said with intent to offend, it uses an electronic or digital device, and it uses what likely will be seen as profane language (see, e.g., City of Columbia Falls v. Bennett (Mont. 1991)). Likewise if a blog poster were to post the same in response to a commenter’s comment. Likewise if someone posts something in response to an e-mail on an e-mail-based discussion list, or in a chatroom, or wherever else. (Note that if “profane” is read to mean not vulgarly insulting, but instead religiously offensive, see City of Bellevue v. Lorang (Wash. 2000), then the statute would be unconstitutional as well.)

The same would be true if someone posts something lewd in one of these places in order to annoy or offend someone, for instance if he posts a comment on a police-run public discussion page that says something like “the chief of police can suck my dick,” to borrow subject matter from a prior Arizona telephone harassment case. And note that, given that case, the speech need not even be about one of the recipients, so long as it’s intended to annoy or offend one of the recipients.

It still amazes me that politicians think that these are good ideas. They're grandstanding against "cyberbullying", of course, but if they're going to pass laws that have a major impact on the internet, can't they at least talk to someone who understands this stuff first?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

From Lori Drew To Dharun Ravi, Punishing People Based On Others' Suicides Is A Mistake

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:40:50 PDT

A few years back, we covered the Lori Drew case, involving charges brought against a woman who stupidly set up a fake user account on MySpace to try to find out what was going on with a girl the woman's daughter had some issues with. The "fake account" was of a boy who the real 13-year-old girl became very friendly with. At some point, the "boy" turned on the girl, said some nasty things to her -- including "the world would be better off without" her -- and cut off communications. The girl committed suicide soon after. Lots and lots of people wanted Lori Drew brought up on charges for the girl's death. While we found Drew's actions to be incredibly immature and ridiculous, we were much more concerned with efforts to pin the suicide on her. Of course, the law wouldn't allow such a thing, so prosecutors trumped up some charges, involving a claim that she committed a felony by not following MySpace's terms of service. She was found guilty of a misdemeanor (not felony) charge -- which was then dropped by the judge, who wasn't comfortable with the ruling.

Of course, this did lead to a flurry of attempts to pass "cyberbullying" laws -- which try to make it a crime of some sort to be a jerk online. This is problematic for a variety of reasons, especially since it raises significant First Amendment issues, in part because "being a jerk" is extremely subjective. But the worst part is that much of what is considered to be "jerky" behavior is determined after the other party commits suicide. This is extremely problematic -- because whether or not your actions are seen as criminal depends almost entirely on how someone else reacts to them. If they shake off your actions, then you're fine. If they commit suicide, you get punished. Thus, the incentive then is actually for kids to seriously hurt themselves, if someone acts in a mean way towards them, as that increases the likelihood of the bully getting punished. That doesn't sound like a good incentive system.

I'm thinking about all of this after hearing about the guilty verdict against Dharun Ravi -- the Rutgers student who surreptitiously filmed his roommate engaged in a sexual encounter with another male. That roommate, Tyler Clementi, later killed himself, once he found out about it being filmed. Like the Lori Drew case, much of the prosecution focused on the dead teenager -- and you can understand why. It's a horrible (and horrifying) story. But, again, the reaction is much more based on the end results, rather than the initial action. No doubt, what Ravi did was despicable, but is it really criminal? Law professor Paul Butler has an excellent opinion piece explaining why this is an overreaction. He notes that Ravi was clearly immature and did an obnoxious thing in invading his roommate's privacy, but the desire to see him locked up (and apparently there's a good chance he'll be deported to India, despite not having lived there since he was 2 years old) is almost entirely because of Clementi's tragic death:

Let's be honest. A lot of people want a pound of flesh from Ravi because they blame him for Clementi's death. Tyler's reaction was tragic, and it was idiosyncratic.... No judge in the country would have allowed a homicide prosecution, because, legally speaking, Ravi did not cause the death, nor was it reasonably foreseeable. Of the millions of people who are bullied or who suffer invasions of privacy, few kill themselves.

[....]

For his stupidity, Ravi should be shamed by his fellow students and kicked out of his dorm, but he should not be sent to prison for years and then banished from the United States.

As Butler notes, the rush to the criminal justice system, and the focus on blaming Ravi, takes us away from a more reasonable place in thinking about how to deal with these things:

The problem with broad laws like New Jersey's is that they come too close to punishing people for what they think. Bigotry, including homophobia, is morally condemnable, but in a free country, it should not be a punishable offense....

[....]

Ravi did not invent homophobia, but he is being scapegoated for it. Bias against gay people is, sadly, embedded in American culture. Until last year people were being kicked out of the military because they were homosexuals. None of the four leading presidential candidates -- President Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich -- thinks that gay people should be allowed to get married. A better way to honor the life of Clementi would be for everyone to get off their high horse about a 20-year-old kid and instead think about how we can promote civil rights in our own lives.

Though a national conversation about civility and respect would have been better, as usual for social problems, we looked to the criminal justice system. The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any country in the world. We are an extraordinarily punitive people.

Indeed, as tragic as Clementi's death is, it did inspire thousands of people to act in a positive manner against homophobia by launching the It Gets Better project -- a very powerful way that tons of people have gathered to try to pass along the message to bullied teens (mainly from the LGBT community) that things do, in fact, get better. That response is a way of trying to deal with the actual problems. Going after Ravi with these charges just seems like a punitive action based on what Clementi did after Ravi's clearly childish and obnoxious actions. It certainly can be difficult to separate out what Ravi did from what Clementi did later, but in a society based on law, that's what we're supposed to do. Being a jerk should get you shunned, but not put in prison.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

'Ya Dun Goofed': Evidence That Censorship Is Both Needed And Not Needed

Mike Masnick — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:37:21 PDT

If you happen to keep up with the latest internet memes (you know who you are), you almost certainly have heard about the whole "ya dun goofed"/Jessi Slaughter saga. If you (lucky you) aren't aware of this, and wish to find out (and, I warn you, you may be better off not knowing about this), all the details are at that link. Frankly, after watching the key videos, embedded below, the whole thing really feels faked for the sake of attention. The whole thing is so over the top that it feels like a calculated attempt to get viral YouTube fame.

Either way, whether it's real or not, what's fascinating is how different people have reacted to it. Over at NewTeeVee, there's an interview with Kenyatta Cheese, where he notes that the most fascinating thing about it is that after the video above happened, there was another video chat (via Stickam), where a bunch of the folks who had supposedly been egging Jessi on, really are incredibly nasty to her in a chat, and she totally ignores it. I mean totally ignores all sorts of angry insults. For whatever reason, YouTube has taken that video down due to a "terms of use" violation, so you can't see it, but you can imagine it (I saw it before it was taken down). Basically, a few folks were chatting by video, and in the text chat, people were hurling all of the worst kinds of slurs at Jessi, and she acts in the complete opposite way as in the video above: no crying, no anger. She just focuses on other folks.

As Kenyatta notes:

What's more interesting to me is the fact that just after her very public breakdown, she went back on Stickam a few hours later, completely unfazed by the insults being hurled at her.... The chat is filled with the kind of stuff that parents would call 'bullying,' however, she's totally ignoring it all. Clearly the internet has created a new kind of teenager, able to filter out the kind of noise that would "ruin" the life of folks like Star Wars Kid just years before.

That seemed interesting to me, though, I'm not sure I buy that. First of all, it's a single anecdote involving a single person and (again), I'm still not convinced this is real.

After reading that interview earlier, I had considered doing a post about that claim of the "new kind of teenager," but figured that the "evidence" was so weak, it wasn't worth it. However, I was then amused to look at the submissions for Techdirt, and find a note from reader athe pointing to a professor in Australia who is using the saga as evidence of why the internet should be censored. In other words, he looks at the same videos and comes to the exact opposite conclusion as Kenyatta did.

Where Kenyatta sees a teenager who can filter out bullying and get on with her life, Professor Matt Warren, looks at it and sees a horrible, out of control internet that needs to be censored.

Professor Matt Warren, the head of Deakin University's School of Information Systems, said as long as parents who don't understand the internet kept giving their children access to it, there needed to be ways to control its use.

"You simply can't have free access to the internet," he said.

"It has to be controlled, censored and people have to be held accountable for their actions on it.

"We punish people who drink, we punish people who speed and we have to implement laws to that effect when it comes to the internet."

Thankfully, people are taking professor Warren to task in the comments on that article, noting that censoring Jessi wouldn't have helped. The Australian internet filters certainly wouldn't have stopped the ability of a girl to go online and make some videos. The real issue (if this story is actually real -- but it would apply to others as well), is that this is yet another example of where better parenting, rather than Big Brother governing, would probably help out. And, no, that doesn't mean spying on everything a kid does, but getting parents to at least talk to their kids about what happens online, and what their kids are doing online, along with the risks associated with being online.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Don't Be A Jerk To A Minor In Louisiana Or Say Anything Sexually Suggestive In Scotland

Mike Masnick — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:43:27 PDT

Back in May we wrote about how Louisiana was the latest state to try to pass overly broad anti-"cyberbullying" legislation, that would make it illegal to say anything online that might "embarrass" anyone under 17. With a few modifications that law has now been passed. They (thankfully) removed the "embarrass or cause emotional distress" part, but still left in that it's illegal to communicate "with intent to torment or intimidate" which seems pretty broad. No more trash talking on IM, kids.

Meanwhile, Glyn Moody points us to a new law in Scotland that outlaws "indecent communication" online. The law says you can't say anything sexually related to someone without first getting consent. While, the intentions are good, the reality is that this will almost certainly lead to problems:

In our culture, it is not normal to ask people for permission to say something sexual during the course of a facebook chat or a conversation in a bar. "Do you mind if I deploy an innuendo" just wouldn't sound right. And quite frankly it shouldn't.

Whether people get off with each other in bars, or engage in mundane msn conversations that degenerate into bad internet sex, people frequently make the transition from polite conversation into something more erotic. And this very often necessitates somebody saying something on a whim, somebody communicating some sexual feeling in the hope that it will be reciprocated. And sometimes that means saying something under circumstances that don't quite match up to a "reasonable belief in consent".

The more and more governments try to regulate how people talk to each other online, the more and more ridiculous it's going to look.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online

Mike Masnick — Fri, 21 May 2010 10:02:32 PDT

We've seen all sorts of crazy attempts to outlaw cyberbullying, but it seems that Louisiana is looking to really put themselves over the top in creating a law that creates a serious chilling effect on speech. As Eugene Volokh notes, the law would effectively ban any online speech designed to embarrass anyone under 17-years-old.

...would make it a misdemeanor to transmit any Internet communication or other computer communication "with the intent to coerce, abuse, torment, intimidate, harass, embarrass, or cause emotional distress to a person under the age of seventeen." This applies without regard to whether the message is communicated to the person, to some other individuals, or to the public at large. So under the law, all of these would likely be criminals (though, under a recent amendment the adults could be jailed for up to a year, while the minors could be jailed for up to six months):

A girl who sends her under-17-year-old boyfriend an e-mail telling him what a schmuck he is for having cheated on her, and hoping that he feels ashamed of himself.
A blogger, or a newspaper columnist, or an online commentator, who publishes something condemning an under-17-year-old criminal, hoping the criminal feels embarrassed and ashamed as a result.
A public or private school official e-mailing the parents of an under-17-year-old student a message about the student's misbehavior, hoping that the student will feel embarrassed and change his ways.
Parents e-mailing their under-17-year-old children telling the children that they should feel ashamed of some misbehavior.
A professional or amateur music critic or sports reporter writing a harsh review of an under-17-year-old performer's or athlete's behavior, hoping that the review will embarrass the performer or athlete into behaving more ethically, professionally, or competently.

I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge, but when you're grandstanding around something that gets press coverage like "cyberbullying," it's unlikely that the politicians supporting this even recognize or care about the unintended consequences.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As Cyberbullying Moral Panics Heat Up, Actual Rates Of Cyberbullying Decreasing

Mike Masnick — Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:15:00 PDT

If you hadn't noticed, there's been a growing moral panic around the concept of "cyberbullying", with various states passing laws against it and Congress even considering it as well. And, of course, if you read stories in the news these days, you might think that cyberbullying is happening everywhere and that It Must Be Stopped at all costs To Protect The Children.

However, as Larry Magid is pointing out, actual studies on the issue show that so-called "cyberbullying" is on the decline and most kids are good kids who are as disgusted with the concept as adults. In fact, some research suggests that all of the stories about this "cyberbullying" threat may actually make the problem worse. That's because kids are more likely to engage in the practice if they think it's common. And, even though it's not common today, all the press reports may spread the idea that it is. In the end, as Magid points out, as with other moral panics, the real solution tends to be parental education -- not misguided laws.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Congress Not Yet Willing To Outlaw Being A Jerk Online

Mike Masnick — Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:38:00 PDT

In the wake of the whole Megan Meier/Lori Drew thing, politicians started shoving each other aside to introduce "anti-cyber bullying legislation" that would outlaw being a jerk. The whole thing was pretty ridiculous. People are going to be jerks. You can't outlaw it. Beyond just the First Amendment issue, the simple fact is some people will act like jerks some of the time. It happens. It doesn't mean that it's good, but that also doesn't mean that you can just outlaw it. Of course, seeing as this is the type of legislation that politicians like to claim is "to protect the children" and gets them in the press, there's always a chance that laws like this get some momentum. Thankfully, it looks like our Congressional Reps. at least recognize what a dumb idea this is. While Rep. Linda Sanchez insists that such a law is needed, it appears that other politicians are not very interested, pointing out the First Amendment issues, as well as the unintended consequences of making such a vague concept a criminal offense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US Prosecutor Wants To Appeal Lori Drew Ruling

Mike Masnick — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:56:58 PDT

This is incredible. Apparently the US prosecutor in the bogus Lori Drew case, which the judge finally tossed out in August is looking to appeal the decision. It's up to the US Solicitor General as to whether or not that actually happens, but just the fact that the prosecutor is still pushing this case is ridiculous. It was clearly an attempt to twist a law (unauthorized computer access) well beyond what it was meant to cover in an attempt to bring Drew up on charges because people didn't like the end result of what happened, even though she didn't break the law. The judge tossed it out because of how ridiculous it was. Also, apparently the cases that the prosecutor relied on in pushing the original case have now been rejected as well, making the argument even more tenuous. What a waste of time for a US prosecutor.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anti-bullying Laws Don't Work Offline; Why Do Politicians Think They'll Work Online?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:20:35 PDT

There's no denying that school bullying can be a terrible thing for those who are being bullied. But, in the last few years, the urge to overprotect has gone to ridiculous lengths, including various "anti-bullying" laws (not to mention the silly idea that if Spiderman told kids to stop bullying, they would). Yet, as Eric Goldman points out, a new report notes that there's no evidence that anti-bullying laws actually do anything at all to prevent or stop bullying. It's one of those laws that people want because it sounds good, rather than actually doing anything good. Politicians pass them because who could possibly be in favor of bullying? But the problem is that these laws don't actually do anything, and now there are all sorts of attempts to expand them online where they still won't do anything to solve the problem, but will be used to go after people that prosecutors don't like.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lori Drew Case Officially Dropped

Mike Masnick — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:39:14 PDT

While this should come as no surprise -- since the judge basically said two months ago that he was planning to dismiss the ruling against Lori Drew -- it's worth noting that official ruling dismissing the case has been handed down:

The reasoning of the opinion is that whatever unauthorized access means, it cannot mean mere violation of Terms of Service without more. Such a reading of the statute would render the statute unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it would give the government almost unlimited power to prosecute any Internet user and wouldn't give citizens sufficient notice as to what of their Internet conduct was criminal.

Phew. Whatever you think of Drew's behavior, it was absolutely wrong to try to twist a totally unrelated law to find something to charge her with.

Of course, now, in the wake of this debacle, Missouri passed a new law making online harassment a potential felony, and the first case under that law has been filed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Tosses Out Lori Drew Ruling

Mike Masnick — Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:41:51 PDT

The Lori Drew verdict finding her guilty of computer hacking because she may have broken MySpace's terms of service (without even having read them) was a classic example of prosecutors trying to stretch the law to punish someone who did something they didn't like, but which wasn't against the law. The implications of the ruling were quite troubling, in that they could turn almost anyone into a criminal if prosecutors wanted to charge them as such. For months, though, the judge in the case has been weighing whether or not to overturn the ruling. It's not clear why it took so long, but the judge has in fact acquitted Drew on the three charges she was found guilty of by the jury. This is good news all around. No matter what you think of Drew and what she did, prosecutors twisted the law in a way that would have set an amazingly dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if there's an appeal, but for now, this is undeniably good news.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Texas Politicians Want To Make It A Felony To Create Intimidating Fake Online Profiles

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:38:00 PDT

The latest in a long line of questionable "cyberbullying" legislation has shown up in Texas, where the legislature has approved a bill that would make it a felony to create a fake social networking profile with intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten" anyone. Of course, that seems rather broad. ~~Oddly, the article doesn't mention the Lori Drew case~~ (Update: actually, it does mention Lori Drew at the bottom... but says this law wouldn't apply, because it only applies to fake profiles of "real people"), though, it does mention the Tony La Russa/Twitter legal battle, even though it's difficult to think any court would rule a parody profile as being with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten. Of course, even if the bill is signed into law, Eric Goldman notes that it would likely have trouble surviving much of a challenge, pointing out the oddity of singling out "social networking sites" and (more importantly) the fact that any such law would likely ban all sorts of protected free speech. Still, "anti-cyberbullying" laws are all the rage these days, and politicians want to make sure they can tell constituents that they're out there "protecting the children," so expect to see plenty more of this type of legislation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Prosecutors Still Want To Pretend Lori Drew Was Convicted Of Harming Megan Meier

Mike Masnick — Wed, 13 May 2009 06:31:00 PDT

The prosecutors in the Lori Drew trial continue to make a mockery of the law. After pushing to give Drew the maximum three years in jail not because of what she was convicted for, but because she "has become the public face of cyberbullying," prosecutors are now demanding that Megan Meier's parents speak at the sentencing hearing, claiming they are Drew's victims. Except... that's simply not true. Drew was convicted merely of having "hacked" into MySpace's computers, because she broke their terms of service by not using her real name (even though she didn't even sign up for the account). The fact that Megan Meier later committed suicide has nothing to do with what Lori Drew was actually convicted of doing. The only reason to allow them to speak at the sentencing is to push for an emotional reason for the sentencing rather than a legal one. The whole thing is a rather disgusting display of a prosecutor abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law. Whether you believe what Drew did was horrific or not, there's simply no excuse for abusing the law in this manner.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What is Cyberbullying Anyway?

Blaise Alleyne — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:18:00 PDT

We've been hearing a lot about "cyberbullying" lately. Cases like the Lori Drew incident have got politicians and teachers all over looking to pass vague new rules and laws (or twist existing ones) to punish behavior they feel is wrong. The problem is, no one really seems to be able to define the term, at least not in a way that really distinguishes it from simply being a jerk online, so it's encouraging to see a paper from a vice president of Stetson University, Darby Dickerson, calling on educators to slow down and define cyberbullying before creating policies about it, though I'm not sure she gets to the heart of the issue. Dickerson observes that people have been using the term often and easily, without any real consensus on what it includes and what it doesn't. In the absence of a generally accepted scholarly or legal definition, she calls on universities to take four steps before creating a cyberbullying policy:

consider the types of activity that might be included within the term,
consider the type of harm,
consider the level of intent required by the offender,
determine the extent that it will address off-campus conduct.

This is good advice and Dickerson does a pretty good job of outlining the concerns. She notes that conduct such as "cyberstalking" or "cyberthreats" might be included, while issues of fraud probably shouldn't be, arguing that "not all misconduct that occurs online should be labelled as cyberbullying." She cautions institutions to remember "free speech and related constitutional concerns." She's skeptical of extending the term to include simply being a jerk online, and she questions labeling students as cyberbullies who don't display real malice or hostility. She also raises lots of important questions about what it means to be "off-campus" in cyberspace. Dickerson concludes by urging institutions to clearly define the term before enacting policies, highlighting many important questions that must be answered first.

Yet... Dickerson ignores one major consideration: why have a separate policy for cyberbullying anyway? It seems to me that in order to consider these issues sanely, we need to stop pretending they're separate things simply because we apply a "cyber" prefix to them. What's a "cyberthreat?" How is that different from a threat in general? Is a "cyberthreat" just a threat made online? What if it's made with a cell phone instead? What about a plain old telephone? Yes, the medium must be considered ("you're going to die" is different when shouted in a playground than written in letters cut out of a magazine...), but do we create separate terms or policies for each medium? We do often need to re-examine our laws and policies in the face of new technologies, but it rarely makes sense to have separate "cyberpolicies" instead of ensuring that existing policies are adapted to handle the new technologies. Why not ensure that existing harassment policies cover real harassment that occurs online instead of creating a new "cyberharassment" policy? Without a consideration of the difference between cyberbullying and bullying in general at the heart of this discussion, people run the risk of spending their energy blaming the technology and grandstanding, creating new policies with troubling unintended consequences rather than addressing the real issue, which often may well just be plain old bullying in a new context. The new context can certainly present new challenges that might warrant policy changes, but people should be careful not to get distracted from the issue of bullying just because it has "cyber" tacked onto the front.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Prosecutors Want To Give Lori Drew 3 Years In Jail For Symbolic Reasons

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 May 2009 14:19:13 PDT

As the sentencing phase of the Lori Drew trial moves forward, prosecutors are asking for three years in jail, well beyond what she should get based on normal sentencing guidelines. So, why? It's not because of anything she actually did, but because of what she represents:

"Defendant has become the public face of cyberbullying. A probationary sentence might embolden others to use the Internet to torment and exploit children."

It's hard to have any more direct proof that this case has never been about what Lori Drew actually did and whether it was a crime, but about some grandstanding prosecutors looking to create a PR campaign. Even worse, the prosecutors seem to be focusing on the cyberbullying issue even though that's not what the trial was even about. She was convicted of computer fraud in giving a false name to MySpace, violating its terms of service. The actual "cyberbullying" isn't what she's on trial for at all. It's really rather despicable to see the legal process twisted, in a Salem Witch Trial type of show, in which the sentencing recommendation has no relation to the actual conviction.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Congressional Rep Wants To Put Internet Trolls In Jail

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 May 2009 08:21:00 PDT

Last year, the lawsuit against Lori Drew got plenty of attention. It involved the sad story of a girl, Megan Meier, who ended up killing herself after a "friend" she met on MySpace ended their friendship in a rather rude fashion. It later turned out that the "friend" wasn't a real person, but a made up individual, created by a former friend of the girl, that girl's mother (Lori) and an employee of Lori created the person (they claim) as a way of finding out what Meghan was saying about Lori's daughter. The whole story is quite sad, obviously, and suggests incredibly poor judgment on Lori's part. However, was it illegal? The initial analysis was not at all. However, prosecutors then twisted computer hacking laws to charge her, and she was eventually found guilty of misdemeanor computer hacking for creating a fake person on MySpace. This ruling was troubling for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it's now quite easy to make anyone a criminal via terms of service. Also, the fact that it actually is likely to put more kids at risk.

That particular case was distorted by a few issues, involving the fact that Lori was an adult while Meghan was a child. If the MySpace friend "Josh" had been a real teen, would the same outrage have happened? I had a friend in high school kill himself after his girlfriend dumped him. Should she have been charged with a crime?

However, with emotional cases, come bad legal precedents and bad laws. Missouri (where this happened) already rushed through an "online harassment" law, and now it looks like we may get the federal equivalent. Rep. Linda Sanchez has introduced a cyberbullying law (named after Meier) that could put people in jail for up to two years for online communications "with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person... to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior."

Yes, this effectively makes online trolling a crime. It's difficult to see how this gets past even the most basic First Amendment review, but that won't stop politicians from grandstanding over it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Is It Cyberbullying When Students Are Exposing Teacher Abuses?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:33:00 PST

Over in the Czech Republic, the education ministry has drawn up "guidelines" for how schools can deal with "cyberbullies" and just like other recent stories, it's the teachers who are afraid of being bullied more than other students. But, as you read the details, it sounds that what the teachers define as "cyberbullying" is actually something more like "students exposing teacher abuses." We've seen this before. A school district in the US punished students for recording a teacher's outburst, and in another case, a student was suspended for filming the principal smoking on school grounds -- against regulations. In this case, the rules against cyberbullying came after students uploaded a video of a teacher hitting a kid. It's difficult to see how that's cyberbullying at all. It sounds like the students were effectively exposing a teacher abusing his position. Yet, the response, again, is to figure out a way to blame the kids and make it more difficult for them to expose teachers acting badly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What's The Goal Of Anti-Cyberbullying Moves?

Carlo Longino — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:33:00 PST

The WSJ has a column talking about some changes sites like YouTube and MySpace are making to make it easier to flag abusive content. The sites are reacting to the growing storm about cyberbullying, and are perhaps attempting to head off legislation that could inflict onerous regulations on them. The column focuses on the speed with which sites -- often hampered by sheer volume, as well as the number of unfounded reports -- can react to the flags and take down offending content. But should removing content that depicts or constitutes bullying or harassment be the ultimate goal? Like other reporting systems, it's a little hard to tell if these will actually do anything to get to the root of the problem: the bullying itself. Treating cyberbullying as separate and distinct from bullying or other abusive behavior that happens offline just masks the underlying issue. Without addressing that, the real problems for the victims will continue, regardless of whether their tormentors' activities get displayed online or not.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Politicians Still Trying To Outlaw Being A Jerk

Mike Masnick — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:40:39 PST

Reader eoinmonty writes in to let us know that Irish politicians are pressuring mobile phone companies to stop mobile phone bullying, and saying that if the companies can't do so, they'll be forced to put in place laws that require them to stop bullying. The whole thing is rather ridiculous, and, as one phone company rep accurately pointed out: "It is unrealistic and unfair to expect mobile phone operators to solve what is a broader societal problem." Indeed. It seems as if politicians think that somehow the mobile operators can just snap their fingers and stop undesired activity. They can't. And, to let them in on a little secret: even passing a law won't do much to help. People are going to be bullies -- and passing a law or asking the mobile phone companies to hold back the tide won't do much to stop them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reporting Bullies Online: Helpful Or Not?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:38:00 PDT

For years, there are a group of folks who regularly raise a stink about the rise of cyberbullying and how something needs to be done to "protect the children." Of course, the solutions never make very much sense. At one end, you have things like people dressing up as Spiderman and telling kids to stop bullying each other, and at the other extreme, you have people saying that there should be laws outlawing cyberbullying.

But what about relying on the same technology that enables cyberbullying to potentially be a part of the solution? The AP is running a story about a website that lets kids anonymously report bullying activities (beyond just cyberbullying) to school officials, so that they can take care of it. It's an interesting idea -- and to be honest, my first reaction on reading it was more surprise that such things hadn't existed for years. How hard is it to set up a form on a website that doesn't require logging in and identifying yourself?

However, I wonder how well it actually works in practice. Perhaps it is effective, but it's difficult to see how this actually solves the problem the article claims it solves: which is that whoever reports the bullying will be called a "snitch." In plenty of cases, I would imagine that the bully would simply blame the bullied. And, depending on the situation (i.e., depending on how scared the bully is of further retaliation), it could just get them even more riled up against their victim, naturally assuming that's who reported them. However, if it can be shown to be an effective solution to help stop bullying, then perhaps it does make sense. I certainly wouldn't condone any kind of bullying, but at some point you have to realize that there are always going to be bullies of some kind, and while any solution that can alleviate the suffering of bullied individuals sounds good, they need to be grounded in reality.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

California The Latest To Try To Outlaw Cyberbullying: Send A Mean Txt, Get Kicked Out Of School

Mike Masnick — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:41:56 PDT

You want to know how to basically clog up the administration of various high schools across the state of California? Pass a law that would kick kids out of school for sending a "cyberbullying" text message. Yet, that's exactly the type of bill that's been introduced in the state, as it rushes into following others in trying to make it illegal to be a jerk online. Yes, cyberbullying is an issue for the targets of such bullying. But the answer is not to create laws that try to legislate manners, nor to suggest that it's okay to kick kids out of school for sending a bullying message. All that's going to do is have overly sensitive kids complaining any time anyone sends them a mean message.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Now Canadian Teachers Want Cyberbullying To Be A Criminal Offense

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:42:00 PDT

At some point, people need to realize that there are some people out there who just do jerkry things. In fact, at some point or another, probably most everyone is a jerk to someone else. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of someone being a jerk -- but it happens. However, in the last few years, there's been this silly focus on trying to turn online jerks into criminals. We've already highlighted such an effort underway in the US, but now a bunch of teachers in Canada are pushing to make cyberbullying a criminal offense. Yes, it's important to deal with cyberbullies, but charging them with a crime clearly goes too far.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Should It Be Against The Law To Be A Jerk Online?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:39:44 PDT

In large part due to the sad story of Megan Meier, we're suddenly seeing a rush for politicians to rush through "anti-cyberbullying" that make cyberbullying illegal. It's hard to see how such legislation will pass constitutional muster, but it seems to be more along the lines of previous legislation attempts to "protect the children" that will do little to actually protect children. Certainly, kids getting bullied is a problem -- and cyberbullying can make it that much more difficult for kids who feel that they "can't escape" as the bullying can follow them outside of school. But that doesn't mean that tossing kids in jail for taunting other kids is the answer. At some point, people need to realize that there are people out there who are going to act like jerks -- and throwing people in jail isn't going to change that, though it likely will lead to frivolous lawsuits whenever some folks get upset about something someone else said to them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story