How to Handle Cyber Bullying

In this age of constant technology use, you will be hard pressed to find a parent or an adult who does not worry about cyber bullying, and rightly so. Cyber bullying can be devastating for the victims. A quick search on most sites provides a list of tragic cases of adults who have suffered significant psychological trauma or lost lives due to unchecked cyberbullying. This begs the question of where cyber bullying began. Cyber bullying existed before the onset of cyber bullying therefore it is not a new concept. Anthropologists actually believe that cyber bullying was existent from the inception of human species and was bequathed from primal ancestors. Author Christopher Boehm in his book Moral Origins indicates that chimpanzees and monkeys constantly participated in bullying-like activities which provided favors such as improved social status, resources or reproductive opportunities to the bully. Fast forward to the evolution of Homo sapiens and the mix of human ingredients of culture and language and bullying is changed from social domination or survival strategy to a destructive activity. It is believed that the ability of language to enhance communication, coordinate behavior, and express thoughts has completely enhanced the destructiveness of bullying. Anthropologists believe that cultural believes and norms take on a role. Research performed in 2005 on bullying and its signs on school going children in 28 countries revealed that severe bullying was experienced in cultures where violence and intolerance were prevalent (Cohen, 2013). The most intense bullying was prevalent among boys in Lithuania and the least intense experienced among girls in Sweden. 

In the current society where aggressive games and television shows are the norm, celebrities and sexualized content idolized, a cultural norm is established. This norms affect the thoughts and actions of most young people and incorporates in existence tendencies to include others into conformity. Humans are mostly influences by opinions and suggestions from who they perceive as authority figures hence this is another manner where cultural norms are established (Drogin & Young, 2008 p. 679). Undoubtedly, the tendency to bully others is deeply founded in our evolving history and clearly still ingrained in our neurological wiring. The primitive survival of the fittest strategy distinctively comes unstuck when cultures conform and idolize to violence, beauty standards, and sexualized content while suppressing the natural aspects of human condition such as homosexuality, racial or physical differences. Now that the roots of bullying have been explored, it is only right to continue exploring the advent of cyberbullying that showed its way into the web in the 1990s with the invention of cheap personal computers. Chat rooms, private messaging created a platform where children and teenagers experienced cyberbullying by peers and strangers. The anonymity on the platforms gave the cover for users to humiliate, harass and intimidate others without the fear of consequences. The far-reaching effects of cyberbullying are destructive and something that all individuals should be conscious of and assume measures against. Cyberbullying actually came into mainstream popularity after it caused several teenager suicides. One of the pioneering cases happened in 2007 when a 13-year old Tina Meier killed herself after her neighbors established a pseudo Myspace account with the name Josh Evans to intimidate her (Drogin & Young 2008 p. 679). A federal grand jury found the accused guilty of conspiracy and illegal computer utilization but they were later acquitted. The Meier’s cyber bullying case resulted in the passing of a Missouri harassment law incorporating the acts of cyberbullying. Meier’s mum established the Megan Meier Foundation in memory of her daughter; the foundation has since been a campaigner for bullying and cyberbullying prevention foundation. A study conducted in 2000 by the Crime against Children Research Center included 1,501 participants who were interviewed for online harassment. The participants in the study were between the ages of 10 and 15. The results of the study indicated that 42 percent of the study participants were bullied on online platforms and 35 percent had receive threatening messages online. 

Cyber bullying gained tract in the mid-2000s when smartphones were becoming more popular. People could share text messages and images to all their contacts (Sheppard, 2009). A famous case in the mid-2000s was that of 18-year old Jessica Logan who committed suicide after her boyfriend shared nude photos of her to teens in more than seven Ohio high schools. She was cyber bullied through test messages and Myspace. Just one year later, a 13-year old Hope Sitwell killed herself after her boyfriend sent nude photos of her in six schools in Florida. Both suicides resulted to lawsuits against the schools and legislation state laws against cyberbullying. In most recent years, cyberbullying occurs in several platforms and applications. A 20 second Snapchat is bound to go viral on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook a few hours, anyone around the world can see and comment on videos posted on YouTube (Taylor et al. 2015). The unmitigated visibility of such posts makes most bullied individuals the target of millions of individuals globally. The numerous platforms have increased the potential of cyber bullying in an unmitigated manner. In 2010 a university student Tyler Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate streamed live a video of him kissing another man on Twitter. A national cyber bullying laws was legislated in 2012 with his name on it. Later that same year a Canadian teenager called Amanda Todd committed suicide just a month after posting a video titled My Story: Struggling, Bullying, Suicide, self-harm to YouTube. The video with more than 16 million views relates to the story of how a stranger coerced her to display her breasts on camera and started blackmailing her with the images. The stranger displayed the picture online and used it as a profile picture with pseudo accounts (Anderson, 2018). A week after the teenager’s death, Canada legislated anti-bullying laws (Hinduja & Patchin, 2014). Prevention of bullying is a team initiative and individuals must consider addressing the issue and reporting incidences to relevant authorities. 

Body 

There are actually no federal laws in the United States that address cyberbullying specifically. In certain cases the bullying converges with discriminatory harassment when it is founded on race, nationality, color, age, sex, religion or disability. Federally funded schools are responsible for bullying and harassment happen among the students (Anderson, 2018). If the circumstance is not settled successfully, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division may be in a position to assist (Hinduja & Patchin, 2014). Bullying often occurs concurrently with discriminatory harassment which is addressed under federal civil rights laws enacted by the United States Department of Education and the United States Department of Justice. Schools are required to address any conduct that is repeated and severe, that establishes a hostile environment at school. That means that such conduct affects or restricts the student’s capacity to engage or profit from services, activities or opportunities offered in the school. The school is required to address any conduct that is founded on religion, sex, nationality or disability. The United States Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not distinctively address religion, this type of harassment is often founded on common ancestry of ethnic characteristics. The U.S Department of Justice has jurisdiction over religious founded bullying under the Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A school that does not address harassment of students founded on a distinct class of individuals might be in violation of one or more civil right laws enforced by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of color, race and national origin in programs funded through Federal financial assistance. Title VI prohibits intentional or non-intentional discrimination; this part of the act is closely related to cyber bullying since it is construed as intentional discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all educational programs that receive federal funding. A student harassed due to failure to comply to gender stereotypes is a common form of cyber bullying; Tyler Clementi a University student who committed suicide was bullied since he was portrayed kissing a man rather than a girl an example of harassment that occurs when a student fails to adapt to gender stereotypes (Stewart & Fritsch, 2011 p. 79). Harassment founded on a student’s failure to conform to gender stereotypes is prevalent in most students’ early years. Students who do not conform to conventional gender norms are more likely than their peers to be bullied. Sex based harassment often persists to middle and high school; a study conducted on students between grade 8-11 indicated that 81 percent experienced sexual harassment during the 2010-2011 school year with a high number indicating that the harassment had negative impacts on them (Hinduja & Patchin 2014). The study indicated that girls were more likely to experience the abuse than boys. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender (LGBT) students experienced more harassment and bullying than others. The respondents of the study indicated that the received verbal and physical orientation due to sexual orientation. Sixty four percent of the LGBT respondents. 

The United States lacks precise laws addressing the issue of cyberbullying despite the numerous cases reported in the country. Cyberbullying is a key issue and it is actually not surprising considering that more than 92 percent of teenagers in the country go online daily and 73 percent easily access the internet through smartphones (Anderson, 2018). The courts are still in the initial stages of grappling with the extent to which schools could address cyberbullying. This new territory is difficult and holding schools liable for failing to safeguard students from cyberbullying needs thinking outside the box. Fifty states in the United States have executed bullying safeguarding laws, forty eight of the states restrict electronic harassment and 23 particularly restrict cyberbullying (Washington, 2015 p. 21). An in-depth look at the restricted conduct indicates that only 14 states need schools to have policies highlighting cyberbullying or electronic harassment that happens off the school grounds. Despite the loopholes in legislation, and lack of the private right of action under state anti-bullying laws, other legal avenues might exist. Schools in all states have the authority and responsibility to restrict off-campus cyberbullying based on existing federal and state laws. Most schools often try to legitimize their failure to address cyberbullying by claiming that they do not have the responsibility to limit student speech that happens off-campus (Roberto et al. 2017 p. 1038). However courts are persistently rejecting the argument based mainly on the United States Supreme Court’s key student free speech case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (Stewart & Fritsch, 2011 p. 79). In the Tinker case, a public school suspended students who wore black armbands to school to fight the Vietnam War; the court held using the armbands as a protest was safeguarded under the First Amendment (Roberto et al. 2017 p. 1038). The school officials were required to indicate beyond doubt that the use of that form of expression would interfere with school work or infringe on the rights of the students. After the Tinker case, the Supreme Court has created additional categories of speech that a school might prohibit without the threat of disruption such as lewd speech or promotion of illegal drug use. Courts have persistently insisted schools can limit student’s off-campus speech by using the Tinker standard which restricts disruption rather than Fraser standard which restricts vulgar language. Some courts have used the Morse case ruling in cyberbullying cases explaining that the same way schools have a responsibility to give a safe environment free of messages campaigning against drug use but also have the responsibility to safeguard students from bullying and harassment (Boil & Huey 2015 p. 155). 

Massachusetts legislators have highlighted bullying and cyberbullying through general criminal statutes and by necessitating that school enforce antibullying policies. All bullies in Massachusetts might be prosecuted under the general criminal statues depending on the circumstance of the offence. Harassment appertains to occurrences of bullying and cyberbullying and alludes to several conducts in person and over the internet that is focused on a certain victim that solemnly threatens the victims and would consequently cause a rational person in the victim’s situation to feel anxious (265 Ma. Gen. Laws Ann. 43A). Stalking normally pertains to significant bullying tendencies as it necessitates harassment and also incorporates an intimidation that places the victim in fear of imminent injury or death. Same as harassment, stalking relates to when it happens in person and electronic media (265 Ma. Gen. Laws Ann. 43). Unwanted telephone call and electronic communication happens when a defendant continuously contacts a victim with the aim of harassment or distressing the victim. The offence often incorporates several attempts of contact even if no conversation happens; the contact might include images, sounds, words and other types of communication (269 Ma. Gen. Laws Ann. 14A.). 

Massachusetts state laws mandate that school boards must have anti-bullying policies that include both non-electronic and electronic bullying. The policies must include any conduct of written, physical, verbal or electronic nature focused on a certain victim. The policy should include any acts that result to harm on the victim emotionally and physically. The policy must include any conduct that establishes a hostile school environment. The policy must include any conduct that limits the victim’s rights at school and disrupts the victim’s educational success. The state law mandates that each school policy must involve a statement restricting bullying, reporting procedures, investigation processes, and finally the policy should outline the consequences for actions to be taken by the institution to stop and limits incidences of bullying. In addition to the punishment meted under the school policy, bullies often face criminal prosecution. In the state of Massachusetts, harassment accumulates a fine of up to $1,000 and up to two years and six months in jail. For any subsequent offenses, the judge may choose to impose either two years and six months in jail or up to ten years in state prison. Unwanted calls and electronic communication incurs a fine of up to $500 and three months in jail or both. Stalking, often results to penalties that include a fine of up to $1000 and either two years and six months in jail or up to five years in prison. 

Jail terms and other penalties used as punishment for cyberbullying often provide closures for the victims and their families. But is a two year jail term adequate for a bully who causes distress to the victim to a point of committing suicide? In most cases prosecutors cannot find any evidence of bullying since content on the internet can be deleted and in this case the bully is regarded to have not committed a crime. Out of the millions of children who suffer bullying, few commit suicides while other have to live with the trauma. Criminal law rarely holds individuals responsible for the results that are unpredictable. The deaths of bullied individuals such as Tyler Clementi are evidence of deeper issues than cyberbullying. In Tyler Clementi’s case, homophobia took on a key role. Clementi’s bullies took advantage of the existing social prejudice but they did not cause the prejudice (Washington 2015 p. 21). There are other ways to address public education campaign. A conversation about the importance of civility and respect would be effective tribute for the victims than prosecuting for manslaughter. Once a criminal or suspect is prosecuted and sent to jail what will prevent others from bullying; therefore education is an effective too to restrict the problem from the roots. The perpetrators of cyberbullying often act meanly and criminally but not homicidally. 

Law enforcement officers often feel challenged when addressing bullying. Officers often have different job responsibilities, professional cultures with differing expectations, its prevention or what constitutes correct response to bullying (Stewart & Fritsch 2011 p. 79). Law enforcement officers are require to uphold the law while school have a code of rules to enforce hence creating a conflict of interest. There are negative community perceptions about law enforcement officers and their role in addressing bullying therefore it might be difficult for them to address cyberbullying. Some officers in the force might be older hence resistant to technology; this might cause them to perceive cyberbullying as child’s play cause by too much use of technology. 

Conclusion 

Technology is the main enabler for cyberbullying therefore using it might be the most effective way to control it. Law enforcement officers could benefit from using technology to address and prevent cyberbullying. Cyberbullying often happens on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter so it would be useful if law enforcement could encourage the schools to use web filters to restrict access to social media sites and applications (Washington 2015 p. 21). Using filters can prevent cyberbullying from happening during school hours through. Using a school’s gateway internet can help school IT managers to track the bandwidth to ensure that resources are only available for educational purposes. The best method is to use a modern web filter that enables filtering by categorization of websites and applications. This allows administrators to continuously deliver availability of educational applications while limiting the use of social media and other avoidance applications. Web filters have changed significantly over the years and it is a sensible idea to select a filtering choice that has automated control. The web filters should handle secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTPS) sites. Failing to incorporate such features means that students can visit HTTPS versions of restricted sites. The filter should decrypt, evaluate and re-encrypt HTTPS sites (Roberto et al. 2017 p. 1038). Technology provides law enforcement with a way of enforcing policies by availing reporting tools that authorize administrators to track online activities at a granular level from any location. Law enforcement could use technology to educate the community about the risks involved in cyberbullying. Law enforcement could create messaging services that target all members of the community on the risks of cyberbullying and methods of reporting incidences. Law enforcement could help address cyberbullying by creating solution that stop bullying incidences before they occur and methods of response. NetSupport is a company that creates software solutions aimed at helping in stopping bullying before it occurs (Boil & Huey, 2015 p. 155). One such solution is NetSupport DNA that helps technicians track and manage assets across schools and districts. NetSupport DNA is a tool that students can utilize to quickly and anonymously report all issues that they encounter to a trusted adult. Law enforcement officers could definitely utilize technology to curb and address cyber bulling. 

Technology has made life easier and enjoyable for the average person. However with all the benefits, the readily available technology has made it easier for criminals to undermine the law. Without utilizing technology law enforcement would be trailing behind criminal activity unprepared for the risks and dangers that these individuals bring to the society. Historical information can easily be accessed and queried (Mateescu et al. 2015 p. 1027). Information in a database can be searched easily and is readily available to investigators authorizing agencies to perform investigations with more precision and accuracy while restricting threats to officers. Technology has contributed to a more efficient officer who has the ability to spend time on patrol and interacting with the community. Better reporting capabilities help officers to cut time spent at their desks writing reports. It is easier and efficient to create and edit reports with electronic devices. 

References  

Cohen, A. L. (2013). Bullying. Research Starters: Education. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89164092&site=eds-live&scope=site 

Drogin, E. Y., & YOUNG, K. (2008). Forensic mental health aspects of adolescent “cyberbullying”: A jurisprudent science perspective. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36(4), 679–690. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t 

Sheppard, N. (2009, December 14). The government is monitoring Facebook and Twitter [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/14/government-monitoring-facebook-twitter 

Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2015). Digital crime and digital terrorism. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chapter 10, "Digital Laws and Legislation" (review) 

Anderson, M. (September 27, 2018). A Majority of Teens Have Experienced Some Form of Cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/09/27/a-majority-of-teens-have-experienced-some-form-of-cyberbullying/’]]]]]=atchin, 

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying: Identification.  Prevention, & Response, Cyberbullying Research Center, Octeber . 

Stewart, D. M., & Fritsch, E. J. (2011). School and law enforcement efforts to combat cyberbullying.  Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth ,  55 (2), 79-87. 

Washington, E. T. (2015). An overview of cyberbullying in higher education.  Adult Learning ,  26 (1), 21-27. 

Roberto, A. J., Eden, J., Deiss, D. M., Savage, M. W., & Ramos-Salazar, L. (2017). The short-term effects of a cyberbullying prevention intervention for parents of middle school students.  International journal of environmental research and public health ,  14 (9), 1038. 

Broll, R., & Huey, L. (2015). “Just being mean to somebody isn’ta police matter”: Police perspectives on policing cyberbullying.  Journal of school violence ,  14 (2), 155-176. 

Mateescu, A., Brunton, D., Rosenblat, A., Patton, D., Gold, Z., & Boyd, D. (2015). Social media surveillance and law enforcement.  Data Civil Rights, October ,  27 , 2015-1027.