Cyberbullying v Freedom of Speech
There’s no denying that the cornerstone of any free and democratic society is the Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution safe guards this right — cementing an individual’s freedom to speak freely without fear of government censorship. But, can this unquestionable truth hold in cyber space?
There seems to be a heightened national consciousness in the intersection of free speech and safety on social media in the wake of a string of youth suicides linked to “cyber-bullying.” In response to the growing epidemic, a series of online censorship bills were introduced by lawmakers in Congress. By August 2017, forty-eight states have enacted laws to combat cyber-bullying, and forty-four states have criminal laws on cyber-bullying. While the move to restrict online harassment has been a compelling state interest, it is important to note that the language of these statutes in criminalizing cyber-bullying vary greatly state-to-state. It is this ambiguity and vagueness in defining “cyber bullying” that have critics challenging the legislative attempts under First Amendment grounds. Free speech advocates argue that these legislations are simply attempts to justify online censorship under the guise of protecting minors. As reprehensible as some online speech can be, critics say that the First Amendment protects the good with the bad – and the right to free speech, in all its forms, must be protected at all cost. But one must ask, why is cyber-bullying being addressed as a form of speech and not a form of misconduct? Certainly, there must be a line where protected speech becomes unprotected. It is the inconsistency in the law in defining “cyber-bullying” that is allowing online tormentors to hide behind the cloak of the First Amendment. In order for states to successfully crack down on cyber-bullying, there needs to be a legislation that is specific to the new digital age – there must be a universally accepted definition of cyber-bullying and what constitutes “protected speech” from “unprotected speech” in order for severe online harassment to reach the level of criminality.
What is Cyber-bullying?
“This is a new world where bullying, once confined in the school yard, now follows its victims wherever the internet goes. Before there is another tragedy, we need to treat cyber-bullying as the crime that it is.” – New York Senator Diane Savino
On October 16th, 2006 thirteen-year-old Megan Meir committed suicide after a boy named Josh Evans – a sixteen-year-old she engaged in an online relationship with suddenly turned callous. After trading insults for an hour on the popular social networking website MySpace, Josh wrote, “The world would be a better place without you.” Megan’s mother then found her hanging in her closet from a belt. Six weeks after Megan’s death, her parents learned that Josh Evans never existed. He was an online character created by Lori Drew, an adult neighbor who lived four houses down the street and mother of one of Megan’s female friends. Drew was never directly charged with the girl’s death.
Treating cyber-bullying as an age-old problem in a new form is having detrimental effects in responding to the issue successfully. Historically, bullying was not seen as a problem that needed attention but a natural part of childhood and adolescence. However, we must note that bullying in the digital space can cause more serious and long-lasting effects than those of traditional forms, and needs to be treated as its own separate epidemic. Lawmakers need to acknowledge that committing online crime is unique – it is an opportunistic medium for harassers because it causes harm with no physical interaction, and thus questionable liabilitu. The omnipresence of the Internet – given that it provides a more visible, public platform to ridicule, harass, or humiliate a victim – could also increase the likelihood of harm to the target. The victim relives the trauma, the humiliation, and the pain of harassment every time he or she logs onto the Internet. As a result, home is no longer a sanctuary to escape the torment for victims of cyber-bullying.
With 7 in 10 young people reporting experiencing online abuse at some point, and one in three victims self-harming as a result -- one needs to ask, how much longer will abusers be handed a get-out-of-jail card before law enforcement treats cyber-bullying as a crime?
.
There’s no denying that the cornerstone of any free and democratic society is the Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution safe guards this right — cementing an individual’s freedom to speak freely without fear of government censorship. But, can this unquestionable truth hold in cyber space?
There seems to be a heightened national consciousness in the intersection of free speech and safety on social media in the wake of a string of youth suicides linked to “cyber-bullying.” In response to the growing epidemic, a series of online censorship bills were introduced by lawmakers in Congress. By August 2017, forty-eight states have enacted laws to combat cyber-bullying, and forty-four states have criminal laws on cyber-bullying. While the move to restrict online harassment has been a compelling state interest, it is important to note that the language of these statutes in criminalizing cyber-bullying vary greatly state-to-state. It is this ambiguity and vagueness in defining “cyber bullying” that have critics challenging the legislative attempts under First Amendment grounds. Free speech advocates argue that these legislations are simply attempts to justify online censorship under the guise of protecting minors. As reprehensible as some online speech can be, critics say that the First Amendment protects the good with the bad – and the right to free speech, in all its forms, must be protected at all cost. But one must ask, why is cyber-bullying being addressed as a form of speech and not a form of misconduct? Certainly, there must be a line where protected speech becomes unprotected. It is the inconsistency in the law in defining “cyber-bullying” that is allowing online tormentors to hide behind the cloak of the First Amendment. In order for states to successfully crack down on cyber-bullying, there needs to be a legislation that is specific to the new digital age – there must be a universally accepted definition of cyber-bullying and what constitutes “protected speech” from “unprotected speech” in order for severe online harassment to reach the level of criminality.
What is Cyber-bullying?
“This is a new world where bullying, once confined in the school yard, now follows its victims wherever the internet goes. Before there is another tragedy, we need to treat cyber-bullying as the crime that it is.” – New York Senator Diane Savino
On October 16th, 2006 thirteen-year-old Megan Meir committed suicide after a boy named Josh Evans – a sixteen-year-old she engaged in an online relationship with suddenly turned callous. After trading insults for an hour on the popular social networking website MySpace, Josh wrote, “The world would be a better place without you.” Megan’s mother then found her hanging in her closet from a belt. Six weeks after Megan’s death, her parents learned that Josh Evans never existed. He was an online character created by Lori Drew, an adult neighbor who lived four houses down the street and mother of one of Megan’s female friends. Drew was never directly charged with the girl’s death.
Treating cyber-bullying as an age-old problem in a new form is having detrimental effects in responding to the issue successfully. Historically, bullying was not seen as a problem that needed attention but a natural part of childhood and adolescence. However, we must note that bullying in the digital space can cause more serious and long-lasting effects than those of traditional forms, and needs to be treated as its own separate epidemic. Lawmakers need to acknowledge that committing online crime is unique – it is an opportunistic medium for harassers because it causes harm with no physical interaction, and thus questionable liabilitu. The omnipresence of the Internet – given that it provides a more visible, public platform to ridicule, harass, or humiliate a victim – could also increase the likelihood of harm to the target. The victim relives the trauma, the humiliation, and the pain of harassment every time he or she logs onto the Internet. As a result, home is no longer a sanctuary to escape the torment for victims of cyber-bullying.
With 7 in 10 young people reporting experiencing online abuse at some point, and one in three victims self-harming as a result -- one needs to ask, how much longer will abusers be handed a get-out-of-jail card before law enforcement treats cyber-bullying as a crime?
.
RSS Feed