The parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman are suing her school district in the wake of her suicide in June. They believe that the school was negligent when it ignored allegations that Mallory’s classmates were cyberbullying her.

According to the suit, Mallory’s classmates at Copeland Middle School had been bullying her since October of last year. She told her parents right away. After that, Seth and Dianne Grossman approached administrators of the Rockaway Township School District on a monthly basis, trying to speak to someone about their daughter’s ordeal.

However, although the administrators told them that the school was investigating the matter, they ultimately dismissed the parents’ concerns.

“I‘m going to make the assumption that the school did something, but I’m also going to make the assumption, based on where we are today, that they didn’t do enough,” Mrs. Grossman told NBC News.

According to Bruce Nagel, the family’s attorney, the classmates’ cruel messages were the cause of Mallory’s death. “There were texts, there was Snapchat, there was Instagram, for months she was told she’s a loser, she had no friends and finally she was even told, ‘Why don’t you kill yourself?’,” he said in a statement.

Photos accompanying at least two of the malicious Instagram posts were taken on school grounds. Nagel’s office has not yet released or independently verified the texts.

Mallory’s classmates also allegedly bullied her in person, giving her “dirty looks” and excluding her from their lunch table.

In response to the torment, Mallory’s grades dropped from As and Bs to Cs and Ds. She complained of headaches and stomachaches to get out of going to school.

At one point, the school met with the parents to discuss Mallory’s failing grades. However, Mrs. Grossman claims that “they were not at that time concerned with her emotional well being.”

Hours before Mallory took her own life on June 14, Mrs. Grossman appealed directly to the mother of one of the bullies. “I can tell you that the mother dismissed it, said it was just a big joke and that I really shouldn’t worry about it,” she said. “Even after I asked her daughter to please stop texting Mallory, three minutes later a text message — a series of text messages — came through from that child.”

Nagel claims that he has identified “three or four” of Mallory’s bullies. He also said that the Grossmans are considering bringing legal action against the bullies’ families.

On Wednesday, Rockaway Township Superintendent Greg McGann released a statement on the school district’s website.

Because the case is still under investigation by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and also the subject of a tort claim, under the advice of legal counsel, The Rockaway Township School District cannot discuss this case in public or with media. The teachers, staff and administrators within the Rockaway Township School District are, as they have always been, and will continue to be, committed to protecting the rights and safety for all our students.

Last year, the district released a self-assessment report on how it dealt with bullies. Copeland Middle School received a 74 out of 78.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post N.J. Parents Sue School District After Daughter’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to spread information quickly, to answer any question instantly, and to share photos of vacations. 

But the internet can also be a powerful platform where unsavory things can flourish. All the benefits of being able to spread information quickly and share photos can be used negatively. When these sorts of things are directed at a specific person or group, it is called “cyberbullying.”

Stop Bullying, a website dedicated to spreading awareness about bullying, defines cyberbullying as:

bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

“Troll-in-Chief”

Recently, President Donald Trump attacked “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, saying:

I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

This raised a lot of eyebrows and questions. One of the most serious questions raised was if Trump could be banned from Twitter for his behavior. John Cassidy of The New Yorker said that Trump will go down in history as the “Troll-in-Chief” because of his online behavior.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, brushed off the criticism her boss was receiving. “This is a president who fights fire with fire,” Sanders explained. But where does self-defense end and cyberbullying begin?

Trump is the face of America to the rest of the world and his actions reflect on the entire country. More than that, as such a public and powerful figure, he is someone children will undoubtedly look up to. So with cyberbullying increasing in schools, it’s dangerous to have the commander-in-chief setting such a poor example for children.

Harmful Effects

The effects of cyberbullying can be serious. According to Stop Bullying, some of the effects cyberbullying can have on a victim include: alcohol and drug use, lower self-esteem, and health problems. 

Cyberbullying happens a lot more frequently than you might think. In a 2016 report by the Department of Education, 20.8 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported being bullied in the 2014-15 school year. The study found that 6.1 percent of male students experienced bullying online or through text message. 15.9 percent of females reported being bullied online or via text. The disparity between male and female is bad enough. But the numbers themselves show a growing problem.

Cyberbullying is different than other forms of bullying for a few reasons. First, it can occur at any time. A bully no longer needs a face-to-face interaction to inflict harm. Through the wonders of the internet, someone can be reached at any hour of the day via text, social media, email, or other channels on the internet. Next, the layer of anonymity can invite more bullying in perpetrators who normally would not have engaged in the act. An article Psychology Today published in 2013 said,

The ability to be anonymous might increase the likelihood that youths will engage in the behavior. Furthermore, a cyberbully does not necessarily see the reaction of the victim, making it easier to engage in mean behaviors.

Those who engage in cyberbullying are subject to certain anti-bullying laws. See how your state stacks up here. In 2012, Delaware became the first state to introduce a comprehensive cyberbullying policy to be adopted by public schools in the state.

via GIPHY

As of 2017 every state has laws regarding cyberbullying, with most having both a policy and laws. Delaware’s policy was drafted by then-Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn and the late Attorney General Beau Biden. Here’s what Delaware’s policy says:

Incidents of cyberbullying shall be treated by each school district and charter school in the same manner as incidents of bullying, and notice of each school district’s and charter school’s policy against cyberbullying shall be provided to students, staff, and faculty in the same manner as notice of the school district’s and charter school’s policy against bullying.

This specific cyberbullying policy is intended for schools and how they can take action. But what about when cyberbullying takes place outside of a school setting?  

Many websites have anti-harassment rules, though they can get tricky to enforce. Take the President of the United States, for example. On July 2, only a few days after the Morning Joe attack, he tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Many people have suggested that Twitter ban Trump for this behavior. Twitter’s rules explicitly say “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

But the social media giant has not banned the president. Yet. Banning the president is a big deal, but cyberbullying is a pretty big deal, too.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Twitter Ban Donald Trump for Cyberbullying? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! It’s the day before the presidential election, and we have a roundup of some of the top political stories you may have missed last week. Sitting at the top spot was “The State of Weed,” the Cannabis in America team’s comprehensive analysis of marijuana legalization state by state. It was followed by Melania Trump’s speaking out against cyberbullying, and Donald Trump’s child rape accuser canceling her first public appearance. ICYMI–check out the top stories from Law Street below.

1. The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State

In recent decades, marijuana legalization has continuously evolved in the United States, as opposition against the drug continues to wane amidst new research on the drug’s effects and criticism of the U.S.’s handling of the “War on Drugs.” The following slide show contains information on each states’ marijuana laws in regards to possessing, selling, and cultivating weed, although please note that this is intended as a basic resource and does not include the entirety of provisions in any given state. This is the “State of Weed.” Read the full article here.

2. Melania Trump Wants to Fight Cyberbullying, but Forgot Who She Married

Melania Trump gave a rare speech in Pennsylvania on Thursday, in which she expressed her concerns about people being mean on the internet, causing many to ask: does she even know her husband? Read the full article here.

3. Donald Trump’s Child Rape Accuser Cancels Public Appearance

A woman who filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly raping her as a child, pulled out of a press conference where she was expected to reveal her identity moments before it began. The accuser, known by the pseudonym Jane Doe, was expected to reveal her identity before media outlets in her lawyer’s Los Angeles office on Wednesday. Her attorney, Lisa Bloom, cancelled the event due to fears surrounding her client’s safety–citing death threats. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A law designed to prevent the cyberbullying of children was ruled unconstitutional in the North Carolina Supreme Court this past week. In State of North Carolina v. Robert Bishop, the state Supreme Court was asked to assess the validity of the defendant’s claim that a North Carolina law against cyberbullying was a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The case before the Supreme Court began in February of 2012 when a high school student named Robert Bishop was charged with cyberbullying under a North Carolina statute. Bishop had posted a photo of a sexual message that one of his classmates, Dillon Price, had supposedly sent the defendant. Following several more posts and accusations by Price that the defendant had falsified the sexual messages, Bishop was arrested for cyberbullying.

According to N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1, specifically under section (a)(1)(d), it is illegal to post private, personal, or sexual information related to a minor on the internet with the intent to intimidate said minor. After his arrest and conviction, Bishop appealed to the Superior Court in his county, aiming to dismiss his charges on the grounds that the North Carolina statute is a violation of free speech because it restricts speech based on content. The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the defendant’s arguments, ruling that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and that to “the extent the Cyber-bullying Statute touches upon or regulates some aspects of some speech, the burden on speech and expression is merely incidental.”

After this ruling, the defendant once again appealed his case, this time to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

The state Supreme Court held that N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1 was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. This decision was based in part on the fact that the statute was content-based and not sufficiently narrow in its interest to protect children from cyberbullying. This holding reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and simultaneously reversed the defendant’s conviction for cyberbullying under the statute.

What does this mean for the future of cyberbullying in North Carolina? The statute has been struck down, so, pending future cyberbullying laws being written, there isn’t currently a law to point to when a child is being bullied on the internet. Attorney General Roy Cooper, an avid supporter of the law, is worried about the severity of cyberbullying and the state’s ability to protect children from it:

Just because violence happens online doesn’t make it any less real or less hurtful. Cyberbullying can lead to physical harm, depression in its victims and even suicide and it’s troubling to see this law overturned.

On the positive side of things, this ruling may serve as an example to future law makers about the importance of precise language in laws. With any luck, a more narrowly tailored law can be written that will protect kids on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down Cyberbullying Statute appeared first on Law Street.

I have a love-hate relationship with texting. Yes it’s quick and easy, but my sarcastic humor sometimes gets lost in translation. At least it used to, until I added the emoji keyboard to my messages. These cartoonish emoticons opened up a whole new world for me, one where I didn’t have to add “lol” to the end of every message to make it explicitly clear that I was joking. However, some of these emojis–like the gun, dead person, and police officer–don’t have police laughing, especially when used in a way that appears threatening.

Police are calling these emoji death threats, and they’re taking these pictures just as seriously as they would take words.

Take the case of 17-year-old Osiris Aristy from Bushwick, Brooklyn who was arrested for making terrorist threats by NYPD officers after posting images of himself with a gun and ammunition on his Facebook with posts like “feel like katxhin a body right now” and “N***a run up on me, he gunna get blown down,” as well as other horribly spelled posts. The posts featured gun emojis next to a police officer emoji.

Just by looking at Aristy’s Facebook page, it’s clear he has a propensity towards posting emoji-laden updates. (He does not, apparently, have a habit of wearing shirts if the photo of him in the tweet below is any indication.)

“Osiris Aristy, 17, was arrested for Facebook posts” http://t.co/6X4MtWf4qF Great name, stupid kid – too bad #tcot#criming

— Dennis Price (@JustAHobbit) January 24, 2015

During the arrest, police found his weapon and 21 neatly packaged baggies of marijuana in his home. Aristy is currently held on a $150,000 bail and is due to appear in court next Friday.

What many naive teens may not realize is that police officers routinely check social media accounts for suspicious behavior. That’s exactly how Aristy, a repeat offender with past charges for criminal possession of a weapon, robbery and assault, was caught in the first place.

Police are taking these cartooned threats seriously because they have to. Just a couple weeks ago I wrote about Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a man who reportedly used the traffic app Waze to gun down NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. Before the murders, Brinsley posted his plans to put “wings on pigs” next to gun emojis and #shootthepolice on his Instagram account. Police were notified of the threatening posts but it was already too late.

Freelance journalist Fletcher Babb also found himself on the other end of an emoji death threat, while researching Instagram’s black market culture for a piece he was writing. Babb discovered an Atlanta-based rapper who appeared to be selling a drug-laced syrup called “lean” through the social network. Babb posed as a potential customer, messaging back and forth with the rapper but never went through with purchasing any illegal drugs.

The rapper wasn’t pleased when he didn’t complete the sale and retaliated by posting on his Instagram a screenshot of Babb’s still-public Instagram account with a dead smiley face and gun emoji followed by the words “dude and his boys took the money off the green dot before they got the pints because I told them when it touch town I’ll take the money off then…”

According to Mashable, Babb reported the threatening post to Instagram, but the company never removed it. The dealer’s account was quickly deleted a couple days after the threat, which is apparently a common practice among drug dealers to avoid detection. Justin Patchin, Ph.D., a professor of criminal justice at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center told Mashable:

When law enforcement investigates, they have to determine whether a person would have been reasonably threatened.

Intimidating or threatening imagery delivered via emoji, especially if it has been sustained over time or if the threats are coupled with some physical action, could warrant a criminal case on the grounds of assault or stalking. It could also be tried under civil or tort law as a case of defamation or an intentional wrong resulting in harm.

The penalties for such charges vary from state to state, ranging from a short jail sentence to a heavy fine. Keeping that in mind, emoji users should start to think twice before using a gun emoji, even if it is meant to be a joke. Police can consider it like it’s the real thing, and that perception could get you in some serious trouble.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Arrests Teenager for Threats Made Using Emojis appeared first on Law Street.

Schools are constantly feeling the push from colleges, the government, and parents to produce high performers; however, in order for young adults and children to learn, they need to feel safe in their learning environment. One thing that establishes that feeling of ease and safety is for it to be bully-free.

Kids and teens who find themselves becoming victims of either physical or verbal bullying can suffer from bruising and injuries, but can also suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, and low self-esteem. Students who are subjected to the highest levels of bullying have higher amounts of tardiness, absence, and dropouts. But what can and should schools do to prevent this issue? Read on to learn about the bullying that happens in our schools, the steps schools have taken to stop it, and what happens when schools don’t do enough.

How prevalent is bullying?

Bullying breaks down as follows, according to statistics from the National Bullying Prevention Center.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50 percent of children are bullied at some point and ten percent are victims of bullying on a regular basis. Since 1992, there have been more than 250 violent deaths that were a direct result of bullying within schools, and it has also been a factor in several famous school shootings, including Columbine.

Cyber Bullying

Social media, text messaging, and other forms of bullying online have taken an issue that most students could escape at home, and made it nearly impossible to escape. Examples of cyber bullying include mean or nasty text messages and emails, rumors spread by social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles. Cyber bullying is especially problematic for schools because it often happens off campus and can even be done anonymously. Many schools even question what jurisdiction they have over things that happen outside of schools grounds.

The number of students being cyber bullied has only grown with “secret” apps like YikYak. The 2010-2011 School Crime Supplement indicated that nine percent of students in grades six through 12 experienced cyber bullying; however, the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey found that 15 percent of high school students (grades nine through 12) were electronically bullied in that year. It is difficult to combat cyber bullying because just when one app or social media service is fixed, another emerges.

What policies and procedures do schools have in place?

Forty-nine states have anti-bullying legislation–Montana is the one exception–but that seems to not be enough. Schools have no way of enforcing some of the policies, especially when no one is a witness to the bullying. Many have claimed that coming up with actionable steps has proven to be more difficult than it seems because of the wide range of types of bullying. Illinois requires schools to institute social-emotional learning to prevent bullying, whereas other schools have mediation and continual programming. Five states don’t have any repercussions for the anti-bullying laws, while 12 states can actually pursue criminal charges against bullies. These sanctions range anywhere from suspension to community service or even jail time.

Many parents and administrators feel that bullying is a rite of passage of the coming of age process, or a way to toughen up students. Especially with male-on-male bullying, it isn’t always taken seriously; however, those entering the guidance field are starting to receive more training on how to handle bullying situations. The topic has been especially visible in media since shows like “Glee,” “Degrassi,” and even “Hannah Montana” have highlighted the lack of attention placed on bullying in schools. Shows like “Glee,” where the character of Kurt was bullied to the point that he left school, have resonated with students and caused many states to reconsider their actions against bullies.

Still, as the consequences make more noise, administrators, teachers, and students are starting to be held accountable for the behaviors within school walls. The Department of Education recently issued guidance to educators on when acts of student bullying could violate federal education anti-discrimination laws.

What can schools do to prevent bullying?

The truth of bullying is that it isn’t always easily seen, nor is it always black and white. Many people who bully have also been bullied. There is no preventative measure that will eliminate it 100 percent; however, what can be done is to curb the bullying to an immediate, manageable level.

Websites like StopBullying, Jim Wright Online, and the National School Safety Center all offer solutions to the bullying problems. Some of the highlights include programs, group activities, and even ongoing programs for both the bully and the bullied. They also map out the different things the schools can do in a situation where someone is bullied.

For example, an investigation should start immediately after the concern is raised. Anyone can raise the concern, including teachers, students, siblings, parents, bus drivers, and other faculty members. The next step is to have a meeting with the child to find out what is going on–but never with the bully at the same time. Peer mediation has its place, but it should not happen between a bully and a victim.

If the bullying is physical, there should be steps taken to provide for the physical safety of the student, and someone needs to alert necessary faculty and staff members to be on the lookout. The bully also needs to have one-on-one meetings to make sure he or she understands the severity of the problem.

The most important thing is that the school does a thorough investigation into the bullying so that it stops and doesn’t hinder anyone anymore–as bullying often has far-reaching effects that can even hurt the atmosphere of the classroom.

What happens if the bullying doesn’t stop?

Unfortunately, that’s a gray area as well. Many schools have faced lawsuits and fines because they didn’t investigate bullying enough. Schools could face anything from fines in court, being sued by the student or the student’s family, or even mandatory programs within the school. The biggest problems could come for the teachers and administrators who either ignored the bullying, or did as little as possible while it occurred. Some courts are even calling it child endangerment, especially in cases of sexual harassment, abuse, and hate crimes. An even bigger problem comes from cyber bullying and the photos that have been taken of students. Some of these images could be called child pornography.

Case Studies

Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, et al. (4th Cir. July 2011)

In this case, a student sued the school district for limiting her First Amendment free speech rights after suspending her for creating a website that was attacking another student in the school. The website, called “Students Against Shay’s Herpes,” stated that the student had an STD, and created a comments section to gossip about the girl. Doctored photos also appeared on the website. Along with suspension, she was excluded from school festivities like a Charm Review, and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

The appeals court said the web page was created primarily for Kowalski’s classmates, so the school had the right to discipline her for disrupting the learning environment. They concluded that Kowalski had created a “hate website” in violation of the school’s anti-bullying policy.

The Judge in the case, Paul V. Niemeyer wrote:

Kowalski’s role in the `S.A.S.H.’ webpage, which was used to ridicule and demean a fellow student, was particularly mean-spirited and hateful. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators.

Still, it is a tricky area for schools, as many could see this as a freedom of speech violation, and because the website was made outside of school.

L.W. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

In L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held accountable for bullying a student because of sexual orientation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD); however, this only applies when the district is aware of the harassment but fails to take reasonable steps to stop it.

The plaintiff’s mother filed a complaint under the LAD in the Division of Civil Rights in which she alleged that the defendant, the Board of Education, failed to take action in response to the harassment that her child suffered due to his perceived sexual orientation. The Division of Civil Rights found that the Board of Education was liable for the peer harassment that L.W. had endured. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Division on Civil Rights.

The case documented several years of abuse that started in fourth grade and continued into his freshman year, where he was bullied to the point of physical attacks. He was removed from the school and enrolled in a nearby district. As punishment for the initial bullying in elementary school, the school had students write apology letters. When he was taunted in seventh grade, the Assistant Principal broke up the fight, but found that L.W.’s behavior “provoked” the incident. More and more incidents occurred but the students only received verbal reprimands.

The school boasted a “zero tolerance bullying policy” the entire time. L.W.’s school addressed the policy in an assembly at the beginning of the school year, but there was no subsequent communication on the policy throughout the year. Eventually, L.W. withdrew from the school and enrolled at a school in a neighboring town. His attendance and transportation expenses were subsidized by the defendant Board of Education.

The Court concluded that the school had not taken reasonable steps to stop the bullying, and that there was more that could have been done on all levels. The Court differentiated L.W.’s situation from “isolated schoolyard insults” or “classroom taunts,” which is how the school had treated them.

Morrow v. Balaski 

At the end of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal seeking to hold a Pennsylvania School District responsible for the repeated bullying of a student by her peers. The case involved Brittany Morrow and the Blackhawk High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Her bullying included racial threats, physical assaults, and cyber bullying. In one incident described in the case, Brittany was suspended after defending herself during a lunchroom attack. When her parents asked the school how to keep her safe, they suggested another school. They later filed a lawsuit against the Blackhawk school district and an assistant principal for alleged violations of their 14th Amendment substantive-due-process rights.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court in Morrow v. Balaski, the family said school officials “acted to allow the aggressor to return to school following her temporary suspension and despite court orders mandating no contact. They opened the front door of the school to a person they knew would cause harm to the children.” The appeals court ruled nine to five in favor of the school that there was no “special relationship” between schools and students and ten to four that legal injuries to the victims were not the result of actions taken by administrators under a “state-created danger” theory of liability.

The court was torn about the case, saying “Parents … should be able to send their children off to school with some level of comfort that those children will be safe from bullies. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social ill.”

Conclusion

Bullying is a serious problem, and that is especially evident within schools. From simple teasing to physical threats and even assault, bullying weakens the education system. Schools are creating programs and offering tools to try to combat it; however, many people think that teachers and administrators are failing to properly address bullying. It isn’t always easy, when bullying now takes on so many forms, including on the web, schools have a changing relationship with students.

Resources

Primary

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley Country Schools, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey: L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

Additional

Governing: 49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How’s that Working Out?

AACAP: Bullying

Web MD: Social Bullying Common in TV Shows Kids Watch

Education Week: Supreme Court Declines to Take Up School Bullying Case 

Pacer: National Bullying Prevention Center

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying in Schools: Who Gets the Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before, and this comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. Apps that allow anonymous users, such as the social networking app Yik Yak, are accused of creating more harm than good. Do these anonymous apps make cyberbullying easier?

What is Yik Yak?

Yik Yak was founded by two Kappa Alpha fraternity brothers, Brooks Buffington and Tyler Droll, at Furman University. The app was first released November 7, 2013. Yik Yak allows users to anonymously post to a community bulletin board, much like an anonymous college Twitter feed. Posts are text only and limited to 200 characters. The catch is that posts can only be read by those within a 1.5-mile radius of the person who posted. Users can reply to posts and then vote — an upvote expresses approval and a downvote conveys the opposite. Eventually posts with enough downvotes will disappear from the feed altogether.

Yik Yak is the first app to allow hyperlocal communication while retaining user privacy. The app claims the only information they will ever require is a user’s location. Yik Yak is used for telling jokes, sharing events, providing commentary, and relaying funny sightings. It initially gained popularity on Southern campuses and has spread by word of mouth to 250 campuses nationwide. According to Business Insider, the app is used by nearly 80 percent of the student body at smaller schools. The founders’ goal is to create a local community that keeps everyone, rather than just a select few, informed. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Droll said:

“We saw on our college campus that only a few people really had a voice. They’re the people with big Twitter accounts, maybe student athletes, who had thousands of followers. My thought was why can’t everyone have this power?”

While founders liken it to a campus bulletin board, critics contend that the app is more like a bathroom stall door where vicious rumors are spread. On June 30, 2014, Yik Yak got a huge boost in the form of a $10 million investment from DCM, Azure Capital Partners, and others. The funding will be used to hire new employees, improve the app on Android and iOS, and increase marketing efforts. Other investors have been wary due to concerns that the app does more harm than good.

So what’s the problem with Yik Yak?

The majority of messages on the site are positive; however, the ones that are hurtful can be horrific. Cruel comments spread quickly, even if the post is eventually removed. While the app was intended for college students, it has naturally spread to younger teens who use it to bully and spread rumors. Yik Yak does not require any potentially identifying information to sign up, including any pseudonym or avatar, and there is no way for users to see a thread of someone’s past yaks. Many users simply think what they post on the app is untraceable. Other similar apps, such as “Whisper” and “Secret” share anonymous posts with other users and have the potential for abuse. However, Yik Yak has more downloads than both of these apps combined and typically hits schools like a hurricane — even after one day of popularity, the app’s damage is done.

Yik Yak posts community guidelines, but the nature of the site makes it difficult to consistently and immediately enforce these rules. Following abuse of the app by younger teens, Yik Yak moved to ensure the app is only used by those 17 years and older. According to Yik Yak, users agree not to:

• “Transmit any pornographic, obscene, offensive, threatening, harassing, libelous, hate-oriented, harmful, defamatory, racist, illegal, or otherwise objectionable material or content;”
• “Transmit or encourage the transmission of unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature”

Ultimately, it is users who are left to police the app. Users can flag negative posts that they deem offensive. If two or more users flag a post, it is removed from the site. Alternately, users can send a picture of an offensive post to Yik Yak, and it will immediately be removed. Posts which contain names or phone numbers are removed. Yik Yak can terminate accounts of those who violate the terms and conditions, but not before the damage is done. Watch some of the controversy surrounding the app below:

How has the app been abused?

Most abuse of the app has come from high school students, but college students are guilty too.

Rumors

New York Magazine chronicled the rapid spread of Yik Yak at Staples High School in Westport, Connecticut. Nasty comments forced many students to leave school in tears. No one was safe from the anonymous racist, homophobic, sexist messages that spread through the school in hours.  A sampling of the tamer posts includes comments like the following: “The fact that O.P has diabetes makes me happy;” “Nobody is taking H. to prom because nobody has a forklift;” “S.D. + 10 years = trailer park;” and “J.N. is a fag.”

Criminal Activity

The disruption at Staples High School was not an isolated incident. Marblehead High School in Massachusetts was twice evacuated due to bomb threats posted on Yik Yak. Students in California and Alabama have already been charged for making terroristic threats via Yik Yak. Users think they are completely anonymous.; however, authorities can track the address of the user and obtain their cell phone number from Yik Yak when necessary. While criminal posts are investigated, the everyday, hurtful posts are not. Watch some of the issues with Yik Yak below:

Offensive Jokes

Most recently, the app has been used by Wall Street interns to bash Goldman Sachs. Some of the posts are funny and innocent, “Goldman interns wear sandals with socks” and “GS interns eat lunchables.” However, other posts are more offensive: “God hates fags and GS interns.”

What is being done to address cyberbullying on Yik Yak?

Bullies once used the playground. Now, cell phones can taunt from afar, and apps are the new breeding ground for bullying. Cyberbullying is defined as harassing or making fun of someone online or while using a cell phone or other electronic device. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, roughly 25 percent of high school and middle school students report being cyberbullied at some point. Seventy percent of students report frequently seeing bullying online. Bullying can have extreme consequences, including low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, anger, frustration, withdrawal, and antisocial behavior. And It does not end at high school — almost 20 percent of college students report being cyberbullied in their college careers. The disguise of anonymity on online apps makes it significantly easier for bullies to feel free to say anything they want without repercussions. Listen below to some of the bullying on Yik Yak at Boston College:

Yik Yak’s founders claim they did not expect the app to be so popular with younger users who are more likely to cyberbully. The pair do not believe high schoolers are psychologically ready for the app and have taken measures to limit use by younger teens. Technically, users must be 17 and over, but most teens ignore the restriction. School districts in Chicago faced significant problems with the app, leading Yik Yak to remove it from the Chicago area for a short time. Some Chicago school districts even sent letters home to parents about the growing problem.

Yik Yak now geo-fences high school and middle schools through a third party. The app uses GPS to detect when a user is inside a school building and will prevent anyone from posting from that location. Restricted service is in place at approximately 130,000 schools across the country.  While access may be prevented at school, students can still go home and post on Yik Yak.

What more can be done?

The anonymity of apps like Yik Yak make it extremely difficult for schools or anyone else to crack down on inappropriate use. Schools may be able to monitor social media accounts and discipline harmful behavior, but Yik Yak allows users to remain completely anonymous. When used responsibly, Yik Yak maintains that “anonymity is a beautiful thing.” There are no repercussions for mean posts, but vicious rumors spread faster than they can be taken down.

The App’s Responsibility

At some level, the app must take appropriate measures to ensure it is not being used in a harmful manner. Yik Yak declares it is not responsible for offensive or objectionable content. Further, Yik Yak relies on its users to monitor content. The app could take more responsibility by using a filter and automatically flagging certain offensive words that would require further approval from administrators. The Yik Yak site declares it reserves the right to monitor disputes and disable accounts. Critics contend that Yik Yak should have the obligation rather than right to fulfill those roles. Many also argue for greater repercussions for the app’s rule violators.

Role of Parents

It is also unreasonable to expect an app to constantly monitor user-generated content. Parental involvement is necessary to monitor minors’ access to technology. Parents should strive to set guidelines, implement controls, and be knowledgeable about the technology their children are using. It is nearly impossible to monitor all of a child’s technology and social media activity. Instead, experts argue parents should have honest conversations about expectations and responsible behavior even on anonymous apps. By the time a child is in college, there is little more a parent can do to try to prevent bullying. Watch what parents need to know below:

Conclusion

Ultimately an app like Yik Yak is only part of the problem. Dozens of apps like Whisper, Snapchat, Vine, ask.fm, and JuicyCampus have the potential for abuse and bullying. The elimination of Yik Yak would not stop cyberbullying altogether. Students must be educated about the effects of cyberbullying and make the decision to behave responsibly despite the lure of anonymity.

Resources

Primary

Yik Yak: App

Cyberbullying Research Center: Home

Sage: Cyberbullying in College

Additional

Business Insider: Yik Yak, a 7-Month-Old School Gossip App

Wall Street Journal: Yik Yak Raises $10 Million

New York Magazine: A Gossip App Brought My High School to a Halt

Venture Beat: Anonymous Messaging App Yik Yak Grabs $10M

Fox News: Psychiatrist’s View: Yik Yak is the Most Dangerous App I’ve Ever Seen

Huffington Post: Yik Yak Makers do the Right Thing

The Breeze JMU: Yik Yak is an Invasion of Privacy

Chicago Now: The Real Problems With Yik Yak

NY Daily News: Student Monitoring: Cyberbullying Leads LA-area School District to Spy

Business Insider: Here’s What You Need to Know About Yik Yak

ACLU: Social Networking, Your Privacy Rights Explained

DISTIMO: Anonymous Sharing Apps

Chicago Tribune: Students Urged to Delete Controversial Social App

New York Magazine: NYU Students are Mocking Goldman Sachs Interns on Yik Yak

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak appeared first on Law Street.

One of the greatest fears of parents today is that their child or teen will be the victim of cyberbullying. Increasing numbers of young people today are engaging in malicious bullying acts online targeting their peers, which has emerged from the growing amount of social media platforms that enable them to hide. While there are factors that contribute to the likelihood of an individual being subject to this kind of bullying, the income of the family of targets seems to play a minor role if any. According to new data released by researchers at Michigan State University, cyberbullying affects young people in poor and rich households alike.

While traditional bullying rates still trump those of cyberbullying, the online version of cruelty among young people is increasing yearly. An academic study published in 2012 defined cyberbullying as “sending mean, vulgar or threatening messages or images, posting sensitive or private information online, pretending to be someone else online in order to make a person look bad or intentionally exclude a person from an online group.” From 2009 to 2011 alone, the number of those affected by cyber bullying increased from 1.5 to 2.2 million. Unfortunately, information released in 2011 is the most recent available data.

It was previously assumed that cyberbullying was predominantly the activity of young people in affluent areas. The reasoning behind this was the assumption that those living in impoverished conditions would have less access to the kinds of resources needed to participate in cyberbullying. This presumed difference in access to digital devices is referred to as the ‘digital divide,’ and according to Thomas J Holt, an MSU Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, does not exist based on their findings from researching cyberbullying.

Another contributing factor to these balanced levels of cyberbullying is the fact that significantly more young people have access to technological devices that can be used for this purpose. According to findings on cyberbullying.us, an October, 2013 survey found that of 400 middle school students interviewed, 97.5 percent had been online in the 30 days preceding, showing that the vast majority of youths have access to the Internet.

The MSU study seems to be one of the first of its kind, as it is only every few years that organizations release findings regarding rates of bullying. The team spearheading the research surveyed 2,000 students in rich and poor middle and high schools. The results revealed that living in poor, crime-infested neighborhoods was a significant predictor of physical, verbal and online bullying.

What can be Done to Eliminate Cyberbullying?

Teachers and parents of all socioeconomic levels need to increase their involvement and more closely monitor the online activity of their students and children. Holt emphasizes the importance of teachers and administrators to learn to combat bullying in both real and online settings.

Such a message is vital to ensure all forms of bullying are given equal emphasis

-Thomas J Holt

According to endcyberbullying.org, parents communicating with their children and setting guidelines for the use of technical devices can drastically lower the chance that they will engage in bullying activity in the long run. It goes both ways, however; youths are encouraged to speak with a parent or other trusted adult if he or she becomes the target of bullying.

[MSU Study]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PublicEpicness via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cyberbullying Knows No Socioeconomic Bounds appeared first on Law Street.

Millennials love the Internet, and most can tell you that from a young age, bullying was as present there as it was on the playground. As states have struggled to keep changing technology on the books to prevent bullying, they have faced challenges when it comes to preventing, or correcting, behavior that happens online and outside of school.

In Illinois, the Senate just passed a law that would ban students from using phones and computers as mechanisms for cyberbullying- whether in school or at home. The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk, and if signed, would be one of few around the country to include such far-reaching rules for cyberbullying; most only tackle in-school behavior. But critics call into question whether the bill can be effective, and even if it is, whether or not it goes too far- making school administrators step in where law enforcement should instead. The law in Illinois previously covered cyberbullying only if it took place on school computers- this new bill goes far beyond that.

This Illinois bill, while in many ways necessary, calls into question a number of things, the first of which being the jurisdiction of a school’s administration. If cyberbullying is taking place outside of school altogether, it is hard to find legal precedent for why the matter should be brought inside the school. Some critics of this bill, and of others like it, say cyberbullying is best dealt with by local police authorities instead of those at the school. Furthermore, not all cyberbullying is a result of students being victimized by others at the same school- it is entirely possible that the bullying can happen from students in other school districts, other states, or even other countries.

Another potential problem with this bill would be the mechanisms by which it is enforced. The simplest way to keep track of this cyberbullying would be to have victims show school administrators websites or other social media platforms that have the bullying. But oftentimes, victims are too scared or embarrassed to do that. And even for those who do come forward, social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, and other new platforms like YikYak (which has already been called a haven for bad behavior), can allow bullies to act anonymously. Of course, some simple sleuth work or help from law enforcement would be able to dig up a lot of information on the root of the cyberbullying, but with many schools being underfunded and understaffed, there are questions about how effective administrators could be about looking into all of these instances.

But even if it were possible for school officials to effectively monitor this kind of behavior- what are the legal complications of instituting this kind of policy?

1. Historical Precedent

At public schools, students are granted a degree of free speech, and there have been a plethora of court cases trying to define such boundaries. One of the earliest is the famed Tinker v. Des Moines, which held students have the right to free speech so long as they don’t disrupt what’s supposed to happen at school (learning in a calm environment). One of the reasons cyberbullying is difficult to mesh in with a case law on free speech, is because it usually does not take place on campus, so that “disruption” is more difficult to pinpoint.

2. Different ways cyberbullying is defined

Currently, 13 states have off-campus behaviors included in their cyberbullying policies, all to varying degrees. Some states, like Arkansas, require off-campus attacks to be directed at students or staff and be “intended for the purpose of disrupting school, and has a high likelihood of succeeding in that purpose.” Other states, like Connecticut, define cyberbullying a bit more broadly, considering cyberbullying anything that “creates a hostile environment at school for the victim.” Obviously, the more broadly defined, the more instances of bullying it will include, and the more work that will need to be done by school officials as a result.

In Illinois, bullying is defined as “any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act of conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically” that results in a student fearing harm of self or property, that substantially interferes with academic performance, or causes harm to a student’s physical or mental health. That definition has always been in place in Illinois, just now extends further to cover off-campus online bullying, too.

It is not yet clear where the line will be drawn in terms of cyberbullying rules each school can enact. It seems that as long as schools can prove the bullying (on campus, or off) led to significant disruption within the school, they are within their rights to enact these policies.

[Education Week] [State Facts] [Tinker v. Des Moines] [boston.com]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr- woodleywonderworks]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois Tries to Expand Cyberbullying Laws Outside of Schools appeared first on Law Street.