Coalition Stops Go Daddy Cyber Bullying Web Site

Numerous articles, including Sandy Maple’s on parentdish.com, “Teen Insult Web Site Shut Down,” have reported that online free speech has bowed to the pressure of community values.  In an effort to stop online harassment, cyber bullying and abuse, a coalition has pressured Go Daddy, the internet host, to pull a web site, “People’s Dirt,” out of cyberspace.  Calling it an “insult site” is misleading.  The site was forum for anonymous hate mail. What did it take to pressure Go Daddy to drop the site?

The site was very popular with vindictive and vicious high school students who used it anonymously to publically trash-talk, harass, abuse and embarrass their targets.  The combination of slander and defamation on the hate board was illegal, but the anonymity offered by the site protected the abusers.

A joint effort by parents, students, school administrators and the Maryland Attorney General brought sufficient pressure on the Go Daddy Group and the “People’s Dirt” advertisers – the advertisers pulled their support and Go Daddy acted to preserve its reputation.

Whether protecting kids from physical bullying or from cyberbullying, that grouping is always necessary to stop bullying at school or online.

The Go Daddy hosting service agreement with its users allows Go Daddy to end service for sites whose content includes activities that “defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties.”  The contents on the site, including a threat to kill students and staff, racial slurs, claims of promiscuity about named high school students, and accusations against named teachers fit into those prohibited categories.

Go Daddy could have resisted the effort and forced the group to go to court to prove some sort of illegal activity.  But this is a much better solution: common cause to stop bullying and abuse.  Go Daddy will find other ways to make money.

Every society or community limits complete free speech because of a more important value: The balance necessary to maintain the strong sense of community that enables the people to live together peacefully.  Neither end of the scale – complete free speech or complete censorship and repression – yields a society worth living in.  Some form of compromise, some balancing of individual and communal desires and needs is always reached in communities that move ahead amicably.

Whether the site will remain offline is still an open question.  Other internet hosts may be willing to carry it.  Alfredo Castillo, the site's founder, has previously said that if the site was removed by Go Daddy, he would move it to an international host, where it could skirt any American prosecution.

Mr. Castillo is a person who doesn’t care about his community.  He’s an individual isolated from his community’s values.  He’s interested only in his own desires to make money.  Those are some of the identifying characteristics of bullies and sociopaths.  Anyone know where he lives and where his children go to school?

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.

Avoid litigation that will keep you awake at night

In her column in the East Bay Business Times, “Legal Report: Avoid litigation that will keep you awake at night,” Barbara Grady used my expertise in the section on handling bullies in the workplace. To read this section of the article, click here Legal report: Avoid litigation that will keep you awake at night

East Bay Business Times, Friday, October 10, 2008 - by Barbara Grady

There are more than a few things that can keep employers awake at night these days. But with a bit of advice from East Bay legal experts, you can take steps to avoid some of these problems, whether it is bullies in the workplace, mistakenly hiring a felon or dealing with employees who spread trade secrets. The five areas covered in this Legal Report focusing on avoiding litigation can be legal quagmires for employers, because laws governing them are ever-changing or have not been well established.

Handling bullies in the workplace Too bad not every child learns that bullying is unacceptable. Instead, some grow up to be bullies. In fact, adults bullying co-workers and subordinates in the workplace “is a tremendous problem,” occurring in at least half of all employment places, says Ben Leichtling of the consulting firm Leichtling and Associates, LLC in Denver and author of “Bullies Below the Radar: How to Wise Up, Stand Up and Stay Up” and other books on the workplace.

In times of economic stress – like now – belligerent behavior can surface in seemingly even-keeled individuals. So companies need to watch for tensions among employees and incidents of bullying as the nation rides through the current economic rough patch.

If they don’t, warns attorney Darci Burrell of the Oakland law firm Boxer Gerson LLP, they could be liable for workers’ compensation claims or harassment claims from victims who endured the bullying. Moreover, employers stand to lose in productivity, workplace morale and eventually profits, Leichtling said.

“It might not be illegal for employers to ignore bullying, but it is not smart,” Burrell said.

Indeed, U.S. Department of Labor studies have quantified productivity loss from bullying, while the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety found in a survey that one-quarter of public and private workplaces have experienced bullying in the workplace.

There are no federal or state statutes forbidding bullying in the workplace, however, so how do you deal with it?

In the absence of codified law forbidding bullying, Leichtling and Burrell both recommend that employers establish in-house rules that state what behavior is acceptable and what is not acceptable – and then training people in those policies.

“Generally having policies in place, a good comprehensive policy in place that tells employees what kind of conduct is prohibited and tells people what to do if that policy is violated is what works. The problem is lots of companies have policies, but they don’t train their people in those policies,” Burrell said.

Leichtling in his consulting work with companies always recommends that they specify in writing what behaviors are expected and what are not accepted, and then set up a process for documenting behaviors that are in violation.

“They have to be specific, like no throwing things, so they can be observed and documented. And they have to be behaviors, not attitudes, because you can’t document attitudes. You can document James yelling and screaming on such and such a date,” Leichtling said.

“Documentation must be practiced across the board, as part of performance evaluations, so one person does not feel singled out or the target of discrimination,” Leichtling said.

Bullying can include speaking in degrading terms to a co-worker or subordinate, threatening, and even less-overt behavior like repeated gossiping about one person, Leichtling said. Once documentation occurs and builds – as it usually does because bullies repeat their behavior – the offending bully usually chooses to leave, Leichtling said, because he or she can’t stand the negative limelight. Problem solved.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

"Mr. Negativity" proudly destroys teamwork

Carl loved the title of “Mr. Negative.”  He was proud of being smarter than anyone else and thought his put-downs were funny.  No matter what you said, he would disagree, counter it or top it.  His personal attacks, sarcasm and cutting remarks could bring most people to tears.  He could create a tense, hostile workplace in minutes. He could bring a brainstorming or planning meeting to a halt by finding fault with every suggestion or plan, and proving that nothing would work.  He was convinced that his predictions were accurate and more valuable to the team than the frustration and anger he created.  On his team, sick-leave and turnover were high, while morale, camaraderie and teamwork were low.  Productivity was also low because most people wasted a huge percent of their time talking about Carl’s latest exploits.

What can you do?

In this case, his manager had heard me present “How to Eliminate the High Cost of Low Attitudes” at a conference, and had brought me in as a consultant.  She wanted me to help her create a culture that would be professional, retain high quality staff and be much more productive.

Why did his manager, Jane, bring me in, instead of simply evaluating Carl honestly and having consequences leading to demotion and eventual termination if he didn’t change?  Jane thought that:

• Carl was bright and expert enough in his specialty that she was afraid of losing him.
• If she was a good enough manager and learned to say the magic words, Carl would straighten out.
• Her hands were tied because Carl was a long-term employee in a government organization.

Coaching helped Jane see that she was victimizing the rest of the team by giving in to her fears and helplessness.  Carl was verbally abusive and emotionally intimidating.  And he was subtly manipulative because he had a soft voice and a smile on his face while he sarcastically cut his co-workers to ribbons.  She saw that if she continued to give in to her fear of losing Carl, she’d lose her reputation and position because her team would mutiny or quit.

Despite these insights, Jane remained a conflict-avoidant manager.  She would allow the team to act, but she wouldn’t lead the way.  Therefore we worked around her.

I helped the team create a set of behavioral expectations for individual professional interactions and for team meetings.  It was no surprise that the list did not included any of Carl’s behaviors, that his behaviors were specifically prohibited and that the list of appropriate behaviors contained the opposite ones Carl had been bullying coworkers with.

The rest of the team voted to accept the code of professional behavior.  Carl said he’d sign but he wouldn’t change his behavior.  He’d been Mr. Negativity as long as he could remember and didn’t think he could change.

That seemed like an impasse.  No one wanted to waste a lifetime waiting for Carl to go through therapy, especially since he didn’t want to change anyway.  I helped the team realize that Carl had no reason to change.  There were no adverse consequences to him if he kept doing what he was doing.  The team needed some leverage.

Since the manager wouldn’t act on her own, the rest of the team took a bold step.  They told Carl that they wouldn’t tolerate his hostility and the tension it caused.  They said that they’d remove him immediately from any meeting in which he started his negative putdowns.  He laughed nervously, thinking they’d never really do that.  He still wouldn’t accept that his behavior was so hurtful and despised.

At the next meeting, of course, Carl was negative as usual.  He was shocked when the rest of the team immediately stood up and told him to leave.  He sheepishly did, with a parting shot that they’d never come up with a good plan without him.

He was wrong.  They did develop a good plan to deal with the problem they’d been working on. They also gave him his assignment within it.  They told him that people who weren’t at meetings must be happy with the tasks assigned to them.  Carl was outraged and protested.  He looked for support from anyone on the team, but everyone was against him.  That also stunned him.  They told him that they were following the team’s behavior code.  He could play according to the rules and take what he got or leave.  They also told him that he could be very likeable when he wanted to and they’d be glad to be on a team with the “likeable Carl.”

It took two more meetings at which Carl was asked to leave, before he began to change.  It was amazing to all of them, including Carl, that what he thought was a life-long pattern, changed when enough leverage was applied.  He really did like what he did and he also had wanted to be liked.

This example is over the top in many ways.  But I have a question for you: Did the rest of the team bully Carl or were they right in voting him off their island when he was an abusive bully?

One general lesson here is: “When the legitimate authority won’t act and, therefore, leaves a power vacuum, the most hostile and power-hungry people usually fill it.  Your task is to fill it with the best behavior instead.”

There are many other ways to solve the problems that the Carl’s of the world cause at work and at home.  A stronger manager would have done it by herself.  Jane obviously had problems as a manager and wouldn't step outside her comfort zone to solve them.  Her boss soon took appropriate action.

It’s also a different matter if the negative person is the manager or boss.  There are many other problem behaviors that can be resolved with the Behavioral Code approach.  In other blog posts I’ll cover those bullying situations at work.

Please tell me your story so I can be sure to respond to it.