Blog

Well, as you’ve probably heard by now, the federal jury in California found Lori Drew guilty of computer fraud (and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) but not guilty of felony charges of unauthorized computer access to inflict emotional distress on Megan Meier.  She faces up to one year in prison and up to $100,000 in fines for each of the three misdemeanors.  My feeling is that she’ll be placed on probation, as the fact that she has a family and is a mother would serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions.  The pundits are going to say that the decision opens up huge concerns for anyone who registers and uses an online account (on a social networking site or anything else) because that violation of a site’s Terms of Use can lead to a similar fate.  I don’t agree – I don’t think this case will be used as precedent towards those ends.  Rather, I believe the jury made their decision based on the fact that intentional psychological harm was inflicted by Drew (and her accomplices) on Megan, but could not hang their hats on a law that prohibits such an act (because none exists).  Therefore, they hung their hats on the violation of MySpace’s Terms of Service and, accordingly, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  I am very interested to hear your thoughts related to the case and its short- and long-term implications.

So, today is a big day in that the Megan Meier cyberbullying case is going to trial.  Lori Drew, the neighbor who is accused of creating and using a fake MySpace page to befriend and then break the heart of Megan by posing as a boy who had romantic interest in her.  You know the details, so I won’t rehash them here.  Drew has been indicted on four counts, and the prosecutor is using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as the basis for their case.  Generally speaking, the prosecuting team is arguing that Drew “intentionally accessed a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization,” did so via interstate communication, and violated the MySpace Terms of Service which prohibits providing false information while registering, soliciting information from minors, and using the social networking site to harass others.  I think everything will center around Drew’s mens rea – her criminal “intent.”  This case is fascinating to Justin and I because of the possibility (though unlikely) that a grand precedent is set in terms of how courts view and respond to heinous cases of online aggression.  Maybe a jury will empathize with the Meier family and the portrait the prosecuting team will surely paint of Drew as a cold-blooded, duplicitous, vindictive woman who knew exactly what she was doing all along.  You can read more here….

A couple of school districts have recently contacted me in a panic about how cyberbullying has been a major actionable issue for them since the start of the school year, but that they don’t know where to even begin (apart from amending the school policy to cover “electronic” variants of harassment).  They realize that additional efforts and a multipronged approach will be most useful, but they are not sure as to what should be prioritized.

So, I’ve been pointing them to a new, helpful resource we’ve recently developed: the Cyberbullying Report Card.  This downloadable document allows schools to gauge and benchmark their current position and ability to prevent and respond to Internet-based aggression among students.  The findings from this Report Card can then be used as a springboard for specific initiatives, as it indicates where deficiencies exist.  It should also prompt further consideration of other related strategies that might reduce the problem. Email or call us with your Report Card results, and let us know the next steps your district will take.  We’ll give you feedback accordingly.

My local newspaper just ran a story on JuicyCampus.com and asked me about it (since it could be considered cyberbullying), and so I figured I’d share a few of my thoughts here.  First, the fact that college students are flocking to the site to read and write highly-offensive gossip about others is a sad commentary on the state of current society and populations of bored young adults.  Secondly, the benefits of anonymity provide those who post with a measure of invincibility, which is a shame.  Computer-mediated communication seems to really bring out the worst in others as it relates to what they feel free and comfortable to say online.  Third, the court system has historically supported free expression rights, and courts have ruled that these types of posts are protected under the 1st Amendment even if they are ridiculously offensive.  Unless there is a meaningful threat to another, law enforcement will not get involved in order to find out the identity of the author and poster.

All of this said, I was pleased to see that students at Justin’s stomping ground (University of Wisconsin Eau-Claire) are choosing the higher ground of not participating at all.  One UWEC student writes:

“So awesome to see a campus that doesn’t trash people on Juicy Campus. You GO, BLUGOLDS!!! I LOVE EAU CLAIRE!!”

My hope is that students everywhere do the same thing, perceive the site as hopelessly juvenile, inane, and of zero merit, and completely refuse to participate at all.

I found this new CNN article on anger online really interesting.  In our new book, we talk about two theoretical concepts which are highly relevant: disinhibition and deindividuation.  To be disinhibited is to be freed from restraints on your behavior.  In some venues, disinhibition can be a positive thing. For example, someone who tends to be socially restrained may be disinhibited and therefore more outgoing when attending a costume party.  Hiding behind the safety of a mask, they can often interact more boldly with others because they are somewhat protected or shielded from the immediate consequences of what they do.  Alcohol is another significant disinhibitor.  You are more likely to do things you wouldn’t normally do after getting drunk, simply because you are no longer fully considering the ramifications of your actions.  You have been disinhibited.

Thinking about Internet-based interaction and perceived anonymity, cyberbullies are disinhibited and do not have to deal with the immediate emotional, psychological, or physical effects of face-to-face bullying on their victim. When you express hurtful words to another person in real life, there is often a clear and present danger of a fight breaking out (or some other immediate consequence). If that doesn’t happen, verbal violence will likely be volleyed back and forth between you and the other person.  In cyberspace, if you don’t discover or notice it for yourself, nothing will clue you in to the inappropriateness of certain hurtful words.  For example, there is no immediate visual feedback loop (e.g., through body language) that informs you when your typed words actually do damage to another.

Deindividuation is another concept stemming from anonymity or pseudonymity on the Internet.  To be deindividuated is to have one’s awareness of self – and ability to regulate that self – reduced due to a loss of individual identity amongst a crowd.  Individuals who act and interact in cyberspace may feel “hidden” or immersed amongst each other (and amongst the collective of hundreds of millions currently connected online) and more a part of a group than by oneself.   In this deindividuated setting, they tend to be much more responsive to situational factors and their own emotions and attitudes as the driving force for behavior, and accordingly may feel more free to act based on negative feelings.  That is, they may be more likely to fly off the handle, act immaturely due to a small offense or slight, be horribly mean-spirited, lack compassion, and ignore consequences.  These two theoretical factors, coupled with the fact that there are largely no formal or informal penalties or punishment for being a jerk online, are why anger in cyberspace is such a huge problem that sometimes leads to tragic consequences.