Being mean has gone viral, spreading from schoolyards and buses to the Internet, causing countless children to despair, even commit suicide, victims of bullying, cyber and others.
As a result, forty-four states now have instituted their own anti-bullying laws, and New Jersey’s “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights” only needs Governor Christie’s signature. Said Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle (D-Bergen): “This legislation makes it clear that preventing and responding to incidents of bullying, intimidation and bullying are not optional.”
The need cannot be overstated, as child victims can no longer run home and find shelter. Cyberbullies circulate their evil 24/7, and there is no escape. Indefensible, to be sure, yet some parents see spreading harm as a protected right and go to court to make their case.
They don’t always win though. Two announced decisions stand out that favor a school’s right to discipline its cyberbullies:
• JS ex rel. Snyderv. Blue Mountain School District: In February, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pennsylvania school did not violate a high school student’s free speech rights when she was suspended for posting a false MySpace profile of her principal describing him in lewd terms as a pedophile and addict. to sex.
• Doningerv. Niehoff: Here, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a school district did not violate a student’s First Amendment rights when it disciplined her for calling school administrators “front office assholes” on her personal blog.
Meanwhile, a federal court in California has held that a student could be punished for posting a YouTube slideshow of the murder of her high school English teacher.
In another case, a federal court in Washington upheld the 40-day suspension of a high school student who videotaped his teacher in class and then posted it on YouTube with sexually suggestive graphics and music.
In other cases, however, rulings have ruled that schools fail to take punitive action, all in the name of free speech:
• Layshock v. Hermitage School District: Here, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a high school student could NOT be punished for portraying his principal as “a drunk,” “drug user,” and “big slut,” ruling that such speech is protected by First Amendment, as the profile was not proven to be potentially disruptive.
• JC v. Beverly Hills Unified School District and others: In this case, when a student posted a video on YouTube disparaging an eighth grader as “spoiled,” “brat,” and “slut,” she was suspended for two days. However, her parents claimed that it violated her daughter’s right to be mean in cyberspace, and the US district judge agreed because she found it caused little disruption.
Stay tuned as more parents take the side of children who cyber bully by going to court, making headlines and encouraging officials to take more action. As it is, even the federal government is getting involved by developing anti-bullying strategies and highlighting effective programs on its BullyingInfo.org site.
And while, to date, no cases have made it to the Supreme Court, that may very well change. Meanwhile, officials like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are weighing in. His stated legal opinion is that schools have a right to sixteen students’ cell phones and laptops and may also read their text messages if there are “reasonable grounds to suspect that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated the law or the school rules”.
Parents can also do their part by practicing kindness and respect for others, monitoring their children’s online activities and experiences, and making them aware that meanness is not only harmful, but can have dire consequences. Remind them, too, that eventually, what goes around comes around…