Teenagers do things behind our backs.  They hide things from their parents just like we did.  But suppose they’re involved in cyberbullying?  Even if they’re not the original perpetrator, suppose they simply get drawn in to pile-on? Are we liable when they’re cyberbullies?

Sometimes, people make nasty, sarcastic, critical remarks to a friend about someone else but they don’t expect it to get forwarded to everyone at school.  Lesson learned, I hope.

But how about our children being relentlessly nasty and vicious to everyone they don’t like on social networks?  How about if they tell people to kill themselves?

How about our children sending obscene remarks to lots of people under the name of someone they don’t like?  How about our kids asking people to pile on to call someone they don’t like obscene names?  How about our teenager setting up a fake Facebook page in the name of someone they don’t like, filled with altered pictures of the person, a fake history and rants about all the other kids at school?

About 50 percent of teens with internet access report having been bullied online.  About the same number report doing the cyberbullying.  More than one in three report having received cyber threats.  Only 10 percent of kids who are bullied tell their parents.  Only 15 percent of parents know what their kids doing online, especially on social networks.  Of course, these numbers are rough estimates, but in my experience, they’re low estimates.

If these things are done at school, schools will get involved.  What might a permanent record of these actions do to your teenager’s chance of getting a good job or getting accepted into college?

If the cyberbullying is done from our home computers, the school will probably not get involved.  But the police will.  And our liability as parents will be increased.

Notice, I didn’t approach cyberbullying as a moral wrong.  We grownups know that.  But how far would we go on moral grounds to stop cyberbullying by our children if that meant a pitched battle with angry teenagers.  They will object because we’re spying on them or we’re stopping them from joining some “in-crowd” they desperately want to belong to.

So I approached stopping cyber bullies by asking about our liability.

Suppose the bullied kids and their parents go to the police about our children as a cyber bullies?  Do we want the police coming to our door?  Do we want to defend ourselves by saying that we didn’t know?

Suppose the targets file a suit against our children and against us for damages?  Even if we win, how much money will the lawyers cost?  How will we stand the publicity on every television and newspaper in town?  Suppose it goes nationwide?

The lines of responsibility are in flux now because the area of law is so new.  We don’t know where a judge or jury might come down in our case.

Suppose the target of our children’s venom commits suicide or gets a gun to wreak vengeance?  Suppose we could lose our house in a civil suit?  Suppose we could go to jail?  Does that change our willingness to limit the freedoms our children want when they’re living in our home and using a computer we bought?

The bottom line is that we’re responsible for our children.  They live under our roofs.  We must know what they’re doing.  They don’t have privacy.

If we don’t set limits when they’re younger, they’ll grow up to be teens who think they can do whatever they want.  They’ll know they can wear us down if we try to limit them.  Even though we may pay the price.

If they’ve become teenagers already who think they’re entitled to do what they want, we’d better set boundaries before they do something that can ruin our lives as well as theirs.

Since all tactics depend on the situation, expert coaching by phone or Skype helps.  We can design a plan that fits you and your situation.  And build your will and skill to carry it out effectively.

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.