Effective Laws can Stop Cyber Bullying, Harassment and Abuse

Missouri has responded effectively to cyber bullying via web sites and text messaging; has your state? After the Lori Drew case in Missouri, in which a MySpace account was used to bully 13-year old Megan Meier, who committed suicide, Missouri legislators passed laws criminalizing cyber-bullying, harassment and abuse, and schools created zero-tolerance policies.  School authorities and police are determined to enforce these laws.

Last week, …

Last week, a ninth-grade girl was arrested for creating a cyber bullying web site to attack another teenaged girl.  In addition to photos and sexually explicit statements, the online poster stated that the target “would be better off if she just died.”

It’s one thing to say those things in the heat of an angry face-to-face exchange and a very different thing to create a web site that can spread those statements throughout the world.

The ninth-grader has confessed and the case has been turned over to juvenile authorities.  The school has also instituted disciplinary action.

Lori Drew got off because previous statutes were “constitutionally vague” and not specifically directed at cyber bullies.

The law went into effect August 2008 and by December Missouri prosecutors had filed charges against seven people accused of violating the statute.  Hopefully, the new laws are written well.

Although we all want to protect free speech, I think the more important value here is tightening laws in order to protect kids from vicious, false and often anonymous attacks by other disgruntled kids or adults.

There will always be people in angry spite-fights with each other.  And every society draws boundaries about what can be said or done, privately and publically, in these fights.  By trial and error, we’re drawing those lines now concerning the use of new media like cyber space and text messaging.

Part of the message to parents is to check on our children.  Are they engaged in cyber bullying?  Are they being harassed and abused by cyber bullies?  Do you know how to find out?  Do you know how to respond most effectively?

Good for the Missouri’s legislators, school officials and police who are spearheading this effort.  Good for the parents who took effective action.

Stop Cyber Bullies: Vague Cyber bullying Laws Aren’t Effective

According to an editorial in the New York Times, “Vague Cyberbullying Law,” “Lori Drew acted grotesquely if, as prosecutors charged, she went online and bullied her daughter’s classmate, a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide.  A federal court was right, however, to throw out her misdemeanor convictions recently.  The crimes she was found guilty of, essentially violating the MySpace Web site’s rules, are too vague to be constitutional.” Whether or not we’d agree with the constitutional interpretation of the US District Court judge, I think the ruling illustrates clearly why we need clear, specific laws to stop cyber bullies.

Freedom of speech is not the issue.  We abridge freedom of speech in many ways because, in some situations, there are values more important than freedom of speech.  That’s why we prohibit yelling “fire” in crowded public places and why we have laws against libel and slander.  Difficulties in enforcing some laws like libel and slander are no reason not to have such laws.  We recognize that such difficulties mean that there are a lot of gray areas in human behavior in these areas.  Therefore, we expect human judgment to be required in these difficult areas.  But if we didn’t have laws, we’d never be able to respond to cases that are clear.

Angry, vindictive and relentless bullies will continue to abuse their targets by whatever means they can.  If we avoid the difficulties in trying to stop cyber bullying, if we say that we can’t distinguish between lying about our age, weight or physical appearance online, and plotting to cause emotional distress or persecuting someone or spreading malicious, false gossip and rumors online, we only encourage cyber bullying – especially if it can be done anonymously.

Therefore, we need laws that are as specific and clear as we can write them, as well as human judgment in enforcing them.  I’d rather have the option to effectively prosecute people like Lori Drew than to be unable to because there are no clear and specific laws.

Because internet use is nationwide, we need the laws to be Federal laws.

On the other side of the equation, we hope we’ll be able to raise our children to be more sturdy than Megan Meier was.  We hope we’ll recognize the signs that our children are targets of cyber bullies.  But we’ll never succeed in raising all our children to be mentally and emotionally strong enough to resist all pressures and stress.  Not all children will develop the self-esteem and self-confidence to thrive in the real world.  Negative input and negative self-talk will always be a problem.  But in many cases, strong Federal laws will help protect people, especially teenagers.  Cyber safety for as many people as possible takes precedence over freedom of speech.

Lori Drew Acquitted by Judge in Cyber Bullying Suicide Case

On July 2, a federal judge overturned guilty verdicts rendered by the jury against Lori Drew, 50, who was accused of participating in a cyber bullying scheme against 13-year-old Megan Meier, who later committed suicide. This case demonstrates why we need federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The facts in the case were agreed upon even by Drew.  She set-up a MySpace account under an assumed name, “Josh Evans,” that was used by her daughter and an employee to harass, bully and abuse 13-year-old Megan Meier.  It is not clear what other actions Drew took to use or promote the use of the site.  After many attacks on Megan, the fake identity eventually encouraged her to commit suicide.  The three perpetrators would not admit who sent that message.

While that sounds straightforward and obviously wrong, and most people react with outrage, there are no Federal laws to prevent such attacks.  Since there are no laws making the cyber bullying, harassment and abusive actions of Lori Drew, her daughter and her employee a felony, prosecutors had to bring weak charges based on unauthorized computer access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Despite difficulties in stretching the application of these laws to cover the cyber bullying, a jury found Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor counts in the case.  However, the judge overturned the jury and acquitted Drew of the charges.  Some of the arguments for the defense were: * The three bullies didn’t know the terms of agreement for setting up their MySpace account because they hadn’t read the MySpace contract they agreed to. * Stretching the laws to cover their actions could set dangerous legal precedents.

Even though we can follow the legal arguments, the sense of outrage still remains.

This situation makes an obvious case for the need for strong Federal anti-cyber bullying laws. If there were clear laws and stiff penalties against, for example, using sites to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties the case against the three people would have been different.  In addition, we must not offer people anonymity or secret identities to attack other people online.

Of course these laws would infringe on free speech and some people’s desires to create secret identities online.  Which is more important, protecting adults and children against anonymous attacks or free speech?

In the case of the suicide of Megan Meier, had Lori Drew’s daughter accosted Megan in person, laying forth whatever complaints she had, saying whatever vindictive and nasty things she wanted to say, the situation would have been very different.  Megan would have been able to face her accuser.  She would have known her accuser’s personal agenda.  She could have argued or ignored the attacks.  But online attacks through a false identity are a very different matter.

Of course lawyers debate legal precedents.  But we all know the protection we’d want against anonymous people who put signs or graffiti on our homes or burn crosses on our lawns.  We clearly see the need to regulate these actions, even if they aren’t direct attacks with a deadly weapon.  Cyber bullying, harassment and abuse require the same regulation.

Lori Drew and her attorney are trying to drum up sympathy for her.  They say that she’s had to pay legal fees and move from Missouri due to the publicity and anger her family has faced.  They may not have envisioned the final consequences of their hoax, but once we go down the pathway of harassment, bullying and abuse, we can’t control the results.

As parents, this case also should make us question our children’s use of social networking sites like MySpace.  I always recommend drawing firm lines that encourage face-to-face friends and prohibit virtual friends, who, by definition, aren’t real friends.

Federal Anti-Cyber Bullying Laws Needed to Stop Harassment, Bullying and Abuse

According to the Wall Street Journal article, “CyberBullying Report Opposes Regulation,” a recent report on cyberbullying suggests that, unlike other Internet scares, this one is well-founded, but it questions some of the regulatory efforts that are gathering steam.  “The report, by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a right-leaning Washington think tank that focuses on technology public policy, says that data from child-safety researchers” indicate that much of the furor is overblown. I disagree strongly: The furor is not overblown and we do need Federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The right-leaning think tank’s objections to new anti-cyber bullying laws are that:

• Worries over online predators are overblown because one study of arrests from 2000 to 2006 showed that most of the offenders approached undercover investigators, not kids.  I’m glad the offenders approached undercover investigators.  But that’s no reason not to have laws.  Between 2006 and now, offenders have gotten smarter.  And, of course we want laws so we can protect the kids who are approached.
• They estimate that threats due to peer-to-peer bullying are more serious than those due to cyber bullying.  Even if that’s true, that’s no reason to abandon kids who are targets of cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.  As shown by the case of Lori Drew, without Federal laws, cyber bullies can’t be prosecuted effectively.  The Judge acquitted this adult even though she set up the MySpace site that was used to harass and abuse teenager Megan Meier until she committed suicide.
• Laws pose “thorny issues” that are entwined with free speech.  Again, that’s no reason not to enter the thicket.  That simply lets us know that the laws will have gray areas and both the law and the interpretations will be continuously evolving as hardened criminals find loopholes.  Laws encourage angry, potentially vindictive people to think twice before doing anything impulsive and rash.
• Laws would make statements that defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties illegal online, even though such statements would be allowed if said on a playground.  That’s not a problem; that’s an obvious benefit.  That acknowledges the truism that statements made in a local context or face-to face usually have very different consequences than hostility put out to the whole world on the internet, especially if the statements are anonymous or made through the safety of false identities.
• We can solve the problem best through better education.  Nonsense.  Of course, education and vigorous stop-bullies programs are very helpful, but they’re not enough.  Education alone does not yield the most benefits.  Education, anti-bullying programs and enforced laws all together yield the most benefits.
• Teaching people to behave civilly online is no different than teaching children to use proper table manners, to cover their mouths when they sneeze or to say, “thank you.”  That’s also nonsense.  If an adult is a slob at home, no one else is harmed.  If someone gets drunk and disruptive at a restaurant, a movie theater or a ball game, they can be asked to leave or ejected or arrested.  The harm caused by eating with the wrong fork or not saying “please” or “thank you” is minor compared to the harm that can be caused by cyber bullying, harassment or abuse.  Ask the families of Megan Meier or Jessica Logan, both of whom committed suicide after they were made the targets of cyber bullying.  Ask the families of the thousands we don’t hear about them in the media.  They suffer, helpless to stop their abusers, but valiantly and quietly to struggle through life.

Online attacks are becoming an epidemic.  Some sites even specialize as forums for anonymous bashing and attacks.

Laws are made to state the standards to which we aspire and to diminish people’s ability to harm others as much as possible.  Laws may be imperfect and enforcement may be difficult and spotty, but that’s better than nothing.  I’d rather have anti-bullying laws that protect kids 90% of the time and have difficulties 10% of the time, than have no laws to stop cyber bullying and leave kids vulnerable 100% of the time.

Our laws and even our system of checks and balances are founded on our understanding that no matter how much education people have, they will often seek power and revenge.  They won’t always be good and sweet and kind.  If given the chance, people will be mean, nasty and vicious to others, especially if they can act anonymously or the target can’t fight back effectively.

We must rise to the challenge posed by new technology and keep evolving laws and enforcing them the best we can.  We must stop cyber bullying.

Facebook Cyber Bullying Lawsuit Versus New York Teenager

As reported by Reid Epstein in Newsday, New York teenager, Denise Finkel has sued Facebook for $3 million because, she claims, it carried a fictitious Facebook chat group to bully, ostracize, ridicule, abuse and disgrace her.  The lawsuit states that former high school classmates, Michael Dauber, Jeffrey Schwartz, Leah Herz, and Melinda Danowitz created the chat room in which they falsely claimed that she had “inappropriate conduct with animals,” and had AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. I want to focus on two related areas that I think are more important in the long run.

Of course there will be a lot of furor over whether any or all of the accused four did it and whether Facebook is liable for content that’s not obviously pornographic.  Did Finkel complain to Facebook and did Facebook turn a deaf ear to Finkel’s complaints?  And are the four people guilty as accused?

The first area that I think is more important in the long run is the ongoing effort to make new laws in response to new crimes, especially using new technology.  The natural way that we make new laws begins when some people commit acts not specifically covered under the old laws that have terrible consequences.  We respond by specifically labeling those new actions as crimes, and attach what we feel are appropriate criminal penalties.  Then we see, by trial-and-error, where to draw better lines.  The legal system is inevitably slow, inefficient and never perfect.

Given the increasing number of lives ruined by cyber bullying, emotional harassment and abuse, especially in schools, and the number of suicides stimulated by cyber bullying, I think that our society will make laws specifically stating that false and malicious statements and postings, in addition to pornography, are illegal.  I don’t think we’ll hold carriers like Facebook, MySpace, etc. liable for their postings.  But I think we’ll hold them liable for ignoring complaints about specific chat groups and postings that they continue to carry.

Many states and school districts, including Kansas, Oregon and California are considering such laws to protect children and teenagers from cyber bullying.

One stumbling block in making such laws is where to draw the lines and the hidden assumption that cyberbullying laws can and should be made “just right” for all situations – never too lax, never too harsh.  But the letter of the laws can never cover all situations with “just right” justice.  We always depend on human wisdom in the law’s application to specific situations.  That’s just the way it is – for better or for worse.

And I think that in this area, safety should triumph over cyber freedom.

The second area that I think is more important in the long run is parenting for the specific situations involving our kids and teenagers.  Our job is to monitor our children:

1. Do they look like they’re having a hard time (maybe being attacked by cyberbullies)?  How can we help them stop bullying on their own or do we need to intervene?
2. Are they witnessing cyber bullying and are they struggling to know whether or how to intervene?
3. Are they cyber bullies?  How do we stop them and help them develop the character to make amends and do better next time?
4. Should they even be on MySpace or Facebook or any social networking sites?  What else would be a better use of their time and energy?

And of course there are no easy answers.  No one is really dumb enough to think there are easy solutions.

There are no safe environments.  Schools and the real world have never been safe.  Schools and social networks are testing grounds for the real world.  And the real world is not and should not be safe.  Facing risks and danger helps us develop good sense, good character and the qualities necessary to survive.  Imagine growing up on a farm, in a wilderness village or in the middle ages.  Not safe.  I grew up in New York City.  Not safe.  Millennia ago we had to learn what a saber-toothed tiger’s foot prints looked like and how long ago they were left.  The world still requires survival skills, even if different ones.

Our job as parents is to teach our children the skills and grit to survive in whichever jungle or battleground they live, and to protect them when they’re over-matched.

For practical, real-world tactics designed to stop school bullies and bullying, please see “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks,” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids.”  Individualized coaching can design action plans to fit your specific situation.  Also, the strong and clear voice of an outside speaker can empower principals, teachers and other students to stop bullying and abuse.

Rules to curb online bullying raise concerns

In his article for MSNBC, “Rules to curb online bullying raise concerns,” Alex Johnson discusses the need for laws to prevent cyberbullying and also details situations in which schools can overreact in the enforcement of those rules.  The case of teenager Avery Doninger is particularly glaring. The underlying thrust of the article is the need to create exactly the right laws that will give the right result in every situation.  Situations like the cyberbullying suicide case last year make good laws critical.

The real problem is not necessarily the law; it’s the hidden assumption that cyberbullying laws can ever be made “just right” for all situations – never too lax, never too harsh.  That assumption overlooks history and human nature.  The letter of the law can never cover all situations with “just right” justice.  We always depend on human wisdom in the law’s application to specific situations.  That’s just the way it is – for better or for worse.

Our society is in the stage of figuring out where we want to draw the lines about a new method, cyberbullying, that bullies and perpetrators use to harass, abuse and attack adults and children.  That’s our normal trial and error process.  There’s no easy answer for protecting kids online. Actually, we make laws in hopes that they’ll yield justice in, say, 95% of the cases that come up.  No matter what laws we make in any area of life, there will be specific situations in which a literal or dumb interpretation leads to an under or over-reaction.  That’s where we hope the individuals involved use good sense and good judgment.

In the case of Avery Doninger, the real question is: Is the law bad or did the school principal get defensive and over-react by not giving a second chance to a good and contrite student who learned an important lesson or is there more we don’t know about Avery?

We’re stuck with the fact that laws, by themselves, will never cover every situation, no matter where we draw the lines; whether it’s about cyberbullies, verbal bullies or physical bullies. I look carefully at the application of any law in a specific situation before rushing in to change the law.  Often the problem is in the application, not in the law itself.  That’s why we have Appeals Courts.

Separate from the general laws are the specific situations involving my kids and your kids (and adults).  My job is to monitor my children:

• Do they look like they’re having a hard time and may be being attacked by a cyberbully?  Are they having difficulty dealing with it?  How can I help them deal with it by themselves or do I need to intervene?
• Are they witnessing cyberbullying and are they struggling to know whether or how to intervene?
• Are they creating a hard time for someone else (are they cyberbullies)?  How do I stop them and help them develop the character to make amends and do better next time?
• Should they even be using MySpace or FaceBook or any social networking sites?  What else would be a better use of their time and energy?

I’m going to get my answers to those questions by observing them, talking to them and, maybe, using good software like PC Pandora to monitor what they’re doing (http://blog.pcpandora.com/2009/01/29/do-new-cyberbullying-laws-go-to-far/).

Cyberbullies and cyberbullying will be with us no matter what laws we make.  We hope the laws will help us deal effectively with most of them.

As I show in my books and CDs of case studies, “How to Stop Bullies in their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids,” bullies are not all the same, but their patterns of behavior, their tactics, are the same.  That’s why we can find methods to stop most of them.  If we don’t stop bullies, they’ll think we’re easy prey.  Like sharks, they’ll just go after us more.

When children and teens learn how to stop bullies in their tracks, they develop strength of character, determination, resilience and skill.  They’ll need these qualities to succeed against the real world bullies they’ll face as adults. Coaching designed for the specific situations faced by individual parents and teenagers is critical.

Beating the CyberBully

In his post on Urban Semiotic, “Beating the CyberBully,” David Boles discusses the hate mail, anonymous and faked comments, and other tactics of cyberbullies.  He lists some cases that have finally been heard by courts with jurisdiction, including the one when a vengeful adult drove a neighboring teenager to commit suicide.  David points out that some states have adopted anti-cyberbullying laws while others don’t It’s so frustrating for parents and kids because we often feel pretty helpless, even when we can see the warning signs of cyberbullying.

I’m glad some states are finally passing laws to outlaw cyberbullying and I hope the Federal government will also.  I’m glad YouTube, MySpace and Facebook also have become part of the policing effort; good for them.  If these social networks don’t take strong action, then parents shouldn’t allow their children to use those sites; whether the kids like it or not.

It’s the only way we’ll have a chance to stop cyberbullies.  Writing and enforcing these laws will be as difficult as enforcing the libel laws we already have.  We’ll have to distinguish between an angry exchange and a pattern of on-going attacks.

The laws will make it possible to draw the line that outing and prosecuting cyberbullies is more important than the anonymity and privacy that the internet affords … and that we all like.

I don’t let my empathy, sympathy and pity of cyberbullies get in the way of doing what’s necessary to stop their behavior.  Not only put them in prison, but make it illegal for them to get on the net again.  Just like we restrict some activities of convicted felons.

I learned effective techniques to deal with bullies through growing up in New York City, by watching our six children (three girls and three boys) deal with each other and with bullies at school, and through my experience as a coach, psychotherapist and consultant.

The signs of cyberbullying

The post on the PC Pandora Blog, “The signs of cyberbullying,” refers to an article by Elizabeth Wasserman, “Warning signs: Is Your Child Having Cyber Issues?”  The original article gives a good list of some of the signs that your child might be having trouble dealing with cyber bullies.  The follow-up post refers to the PC Pandora software that will alert parents if their child is either being the victim of cyberbullying or is even a cyberbully him or herself. The signs they listed were: * Changed work habits, grades slipping, failing tests. * Losing sleep or sleeping too much. * Increased insecurity or irritability.

I would add withdrawal and lack of communication.  These warning signs are really some of the warning signs that teenagers are having problems with any issue they can’t resolve by themselves, not only cyberbullying.  They’re tip-offs that parents need to talk more with their children and find out what’s going on.

However, the solutions suggested by the experts in the article fall short in the real-world.  They all stem from the ideas that kids are experts and parents should not upset or pressure their children too much.  Instead, parents should only make what I think of as weak suggestions.

However, suggestions are nice but are usually not enough.  Most children may be more expert than their parents about technology but: 1. They don’t know what’s best for them.  I hope that as parents with much broader experience, we know a lot that our children don’t and they have already had the opportunity to see that. 2. They’re not more expert than we are about dealing with bullies.  I hope we have many ideas they haven’t thought about, even if that might mean they would have to go outside their comfort zones or we might have to intervene.

We may have to work hard to get our kids to tell us or to problem solve with us.  How many of us told our parents when we had trouble?  But that’s the universal task.  Their liking it or not is not the most important criterion.

I know parents who have even prohibited their children from wasting time on social networks like YouTube, MySpace and Facebook.  They want their children to have face to face social activities with real people they can judge face to face.  How’s that for a concept.

I also think that to put a dent in the amount of cyberbullying, we’ll need Federal laws to make it illegal and then the willingness of social networks to turn over records of cyberbullies.  Writing and enforcing these laws will be as difficult as enforcing the libel laws we already have.  We’ll have to distinguish between an angry exchange and a pattern of on-going attacks.

I learned effective techniques to deal with bullies through growing up in New York City, by watching our six children (three girls and three boys) deal with each other and with bullies at school, and through my experience as a coach, psychotherapist and consultant.

Cyberbullying suicide case

I've been reading the news reports and postings about the cyberbullying suicide case.  For example, "No Charges in Cyberbullying Suicide Case," and "L.A. Grand Jury Investigates Web Suicide Case" and "Prosecutor Will Review Megan Meier Cyberbullying Case," and "Mom: MySpace Hoax Led to Daughter's Suicide," and "Cyberbullying Suicide Stokes the Internet Fury Machine," and "Prosecutor won't bring charges in MySpace suicide." That's the case in which Megan Meier, a teenage girl, was pushed toward committing suicide by Lori Drew, the mother of a former friend of Megan's.  Lori Drew, pretending to be a 16 year-old boy on MySpace, engaged Megan and exacted her revenge by dumping Megan.

To the parents of children and teens, I'd like to comment about only one aspect of this tragic situation.

We should be aware that this use of social networking sites and the internet will become more prevalent.  Predators and bullies, and hurt, angry, righteous and spiteful adults and teenagers have always used whatever methods they could in order to attack and take revenge on their targets.  Teens and adults will subject other teens to emotional abuse, verbal abuse and now cyberbullying, manipulation and intimidation.  They stimulate the insecurity and low self-esteem of their victims.  The ability to remain anonymous on the internet increases the likelihood that cowards, bullies and predators will use the web to strike at their targets and victims.

The world has been, is and always will be a place with potential danger.  Life is full of risks.  As much as we will discuss, argue and make legislation in order to protect our children and teens, the dangers and risks will remain.  That doesn't excuse Lori Drew.  That's just the way I think the world is and we must take that into account as we raise our children.

Do not teach your children that the world is a safe place.  Good parenting requires you to teach your children how to balance the risks, stakes, benefits and dangers of every activity.  You must teach your children to judge wisely which activities (which dark alleys, parties, friends and events) seem safe and which have huge risks attached.  You must do that in order to help them increased their independence, self-reliance, confidence and self-esteem.  And you must monitor them.  And, if your children and teens are like mine, you must also be prepared for them to do what they please.  But you're planting good seeds.

There have always been and will always be predators and bullies.  Prepare yourself and your children.  Of course, there also have been, are and always will be wonderful people who are worth knowing and who will stand by you in times of tragedy.  Find them and fill your life with them.

As Rabindranath Tagore said, "Create an isle of song in a sea of shouts."

I hope these parenting tips, taken from my coaching and speaking, help.  What do you think?