There have been a few high profile cases recently reviewed by the courts, and summarized in the media, where students have sued their schools arguing that discipline they received as a result of improper online speech was a violation of their First Amendment right.  The most recent case involved a former Florida high school student, Katherine Evans, who created a Facebook page called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met!” and encouraged other students to “express [their] feelings of hatred.”  Evans was suspended for three days and removed from her AP classes under a policy prohibiting the bullying and cyberbullying of staff.  With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the student sued the principal.  Judge Barry Garber ruled in favor of the student, saying the school overstepped its authority in disciplining Evans.

Two other recent cases involved similar facts.  In 2005, 17-year-old Justin Layshock created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal.”  While the school’s disciplinary action (10 day suspension) was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, the judge in the case later reversed himself, saying the school went too far.  In February of 2010, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed.  In 2007, a 14-year-old student from Pennsylvania was disciplined for creating a profile calling her principal “a sex addict and pedophile.”  In this case, the court upheld the actions of the school.  These differing opinions seemingly left everyone wondering what the standard really is.  But in all of these cases, it came down to whether or not the speech resulted in a substantial disruption at school.

Sameer and I discuss the issue of student speech quite often in our workshops for educators, because it is such a tricky matter.  And we hear many examples where students create inappropriate profiles online directed toward other students or staff.  In fact, earlier this week a mother called me to seek my assistance in helping to remove a Facebook page that her son had created disparaging a teacher at his school.

It is important to acknowledge that students certainly do have free speech protections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  It must be noted, however, that when at school, student speech can be restricted much more than if the student was not physically on campus.  A large body of case law has established that schools can discipline students, and restrict their speech at school, as necessary to maintain an appropriate learning environment (see, for example, Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 and Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 1988).  To be sure, case law has also focused on limiting the ability of educators to restrict speech to only that which occurs on school grounds (see Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District, 1979).

That said, technology has once again created gray areas with respect to these principles.  What about student speech that occurs away from school but that clearly has some impact on the school?  For example, what if a student creates a web site, from home, using their own personal computer, where they harass a student or criticize a staff member?  This is off-campus speech that clearly affects the school.  While there has been some inconsistency, the courts have generally ruled that in order for educators to intervene in off-campus incidents, they must demonstrate that the speech or behavior caused, or has a great likelihood of causing, a substantial disruption at school.  Just because a teacher or administrator is upset by student speech that occurs off-campus, it doesn’t give them the authority to formally discipline the student(s) involved.  To be sure, school officials ought to contact the parents of the offending party and explain to them the problems with such speech (and hopefully, the parents will take care of it from there).  Moreover, even though the school’s proverbial hands might be tied, the target of the harassing off-campus content has the ability to pursue civil remedies for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false light.  The point is that there are other ways to make sure the student responsible will be held accountable.

I have to say that I am concerned by the media attention given to these cases because I am afraid that schools will get the wrong impression and interpret these rulings as evidence that they cannot take actions in any incidents that occur away from school.  And this is simply just not true.  In all cases they have the right to take informal action (calling parents, talking to the students involved, expressing dissatisfaction with the behaviors, an extracurricular sanction such as a temporary ban from participating in a sport or club, or capitalizing on the teachable moment by educating the school body about appropriate discourse).  If they can demonstrate a clear link to a substantial disruption at school, they can definitely take more formal actions.  Schools generally get into trouble when they respond with knee-jerk formal reactions (long-term suspensions or expulsions) without carefully considering all of the facts of the case.

In short, students do have the ability to engage in free speech, but when that speech significantly interferes with the school’s ability to provide a safe and secure learning environment for its students, it falls within the reach of a school’s disciplinary arm.  These issues are discussed in more detail in our book and a paper we have forthcoming in the journal Preventing School Failure.  We also have a fact sheet that details more of the legal and policy implications of these and other rulings.

This has been a very busy year for us at the Cyberbullying Research Center.  We continued our research activities and expanded our outreach and educational efforts.  We enjoyed meeting many of you through our travels throughout the United States.  We did about 50 presentations, workshops, or assemblies for thousands of youth, parents, educators, and others in 14 different states this past year.  We collected data from about 2000 students in 2009 and have plans to collect even more data in 2010.  We have a number of academic articles that were completed this year that will be in print in 2010 and are working on our next book projects.  We pledge to keep advancing the state of understanding and awareness about cyberbullying in the New Year.  There is still much work that needs to be done.

Both Sameer and I would like to take this opportunity thank everyone for taking the time to visit this site to learn more about (and contribute to the understanding of) the causes and consequences of online harassment. We can’t be everywhere, so we are relying on you to get the word out about this pernicious problem.  With knowledge comes power and we are thankful that this web site has become a leading platform upon which knowledge about cyberbullying can be built.  Hopefully the information gained will give us the power to do what is needed to effectively prevent and sensibly respond to all forms of cyberbullying.

All the best to you and yours this Holiday Season.

Earlier this week, I participated in a Summit organized by the National District Attorneys Association and the National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse with a variety of professionals in the child protection arena. While other attendees focused in on the problem of child sex trafficking, my small group concentrated on the phenomenon of sexting and self-exploitation.

To begin, none of us really like the term sexting because it’s a buzzword, and drastically overused, and because youth don’t use it in reference to what they are doing. However, we understand that the term has been largely embraced by politicians, legislators, and the mass media, and the traction it has gained will be beneficial in further commanding attention and marshaling resources from those in positions who can help.

We believe sexting refers to “youth rendering themselves vulnerable to emotional, psychological, and physical victimization through the posting and sending of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive text, images or video.” I’m pretty sure that covers everything that can be involved.

We don’t necessarily believe that sexting should be referred to as “self-exploitation” as that infers that the victims are fully cognizant, aware, and in support of what they are doing in harming themselves. It places blame on the victim, and renders subjective our perspective of the phenomenon. When youth participate in sexting and then that text, image, or video is circulated outside of its intended recipient (which, incidentally, could also be considered “cyberbullying”), that youth becomes a victim, and no characterization should take away from that.

Sexting is largely an adolescent development issue. This is because of neurophysiological immaturity that youth have, which prevents them from considering long-term ramifications of their actions. Coupled with the disinhibition that cyberspace communication provides, and the geographic distance afforded by computers and cell phones, it’s very easy for youth to act unwisely and participate in this phenomenon. All of this said, we also realize that we (as adults) have a responsibility to step in. I think about the doctrine of in loco parentis, where we (e.g., the government, in the case of the legal professionals who gathered at this summit) have a legal responsibility to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent to protect a child from themselves (i.e., from behavior that can lead to significant victimization). Finally, we must recognize that this issue is a nontrivial problem, and that it requires formal responses in conjunction with the informal attempts that have been made to curtail the problematic behavior.

We have to realize that sexting occurs along a continuum. This ranges first from what my colleague Nancy Willard calls “stupid teen” behavior - which is just part of adolescent courtship rituals and relationships in a time where cell phones, texting, and Picture Mail are practically ubiquitous. Most cases of sexting seem to fall under this category. Then we have problematic boyfriend/girlfriend relationships where there is a measure of abuse or dating violence that takes place. Third, we have sexting that involves intentional exploitation - blackmail, extortion, coercion, deception and trickery. This might, by the way, also be termed “compliant victimization” - which occurs after a period of grooming and the building of trust (forensic pediatrician Dr. Sharon Cooper shared that distinction with me at the Summit). An adult may be involved in these situations as well. Finally, we have what can be termed self-exploitation - which involves youth who brazenly and willingly flaunt and advertise themselves online in a sexual manner. This could range from a youth creating a social networking profile with various sexually suggestive images, videos, or text, to a youth actively prostituting herself in similar environments.

We believe that this can and should be dealt with through multidisciplinary teams that involve law enforcement (school liaison officers, local/state departments, and Internet Crimes Against Children units), child protective services workers and agencies, schools, mental health professionals, medical professionals like pediatricians and nurse practitioners, and social workers. The primary goal of prevention should be addressed through education/awareness efforts to school professionals, other youth-serving professionals, community and after-school organizations, faith-based organizations, NGOs, and of course parents and youth. This multidisciplinary team should be created at the local level, and - if and when done well - it should be shared with, and promoted by, organizations at the state level (such as the Department of Education, Department of Family and Child Services, and similar entities) to the rest of the state. This will then enable other local areas to model their own multidisciplinary team from the initial, pioneering local team. As an eventual consequence, teams will spring up - consisting of a variety of professionals who play a role in stemming the tide of sexting - all around a state, each uniquely positioned and equipped to combat the problem.

Prevention should also occur through formal research of sexting. We need to identify correlative and contributive factors to the problem. We need to empirically determine and assess the range of consequences that befall a victim of sexting. We need to find out - if possible - a demographic and personality profile of those most likely to participate, and whether their background, past, upbringing, and life experiences render them more susceptible than others. Finally, we need formal evaluation studies to uncover best practices in dealing with sexting that can be shared with stakeholders and other constituent organizations.

I was in Naperville, Illinois about two weeks ago for a cyberbullying summit sponsored by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.  The audience was comprised of select stakeholders in education, law enforcement, and technology industry.  The most relevant companies and constituencies were there.  Attorney General Lisa Madigan was on hand to kick the event off with some opening remarks.  Michelle Collins from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) followed with some general comments about cyberbullying and sexting and highlighted some of the efforts of the NCMEC in online safety education and prevention.  Next, I participated in a panel of experts along with Hemanshu Nigam from MySpace, Andrew Chaulk from the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force, and Nancy Willard from the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.  We each provided a short introduction to our background and initiatives, then opened it up to the audience for questions and discussion.  As expected, it was a great discussion.

During lunch, Sarah Migas from the Illinois AG’s office described their efforts to educate youth, parents, educators and others about online safety issues.  In the afternoon we all were broken up into smaller groups to discuss in depth a particular scenario.  My group (Go Red Team!) discussed a sexting case from a few months ago.  We brainstormed possible prevention and response solutions and then presented our analysis to the larger group as a whole.  All in all it was a great event.

It is essential to bring all of these players together on a regular basis to develop a coordinated community response to cyberbullying.  Having pretty much everyone at the table really made for some interesting discussions.  The Illinois AG’s office is very much ahead of the curve with respect to these issues.  Stay tuned for more great resources from this group in the future.

I really liked this article on “Cyber-Mentors”, a relatively new program from BeatBullying (based in the UK) that is gaining traction. Justin and I believe strongly in the power of older students and youth to provide guidance and advice to younger students as it relates to peer conflict (especially the online variant). Many of the mentors who participate in this program have experienced or witnessed cyberbullying, and are therefore in a unique position to offer counsel as they are personally and emotionally invested in helping the target of harassment in cyberspace. BeatBullying is working to become a 24/7 resource, and provide help to American youth as well; they currently work with hundreds of kids a week in a direct, physical capacity and thousands in a virtual capacity. They have recently elected Professor Tanya Byron to be their president.  This is really encouraging to me because she believes in the importance of rigorous research as the foundation of any program.

This article discusses two bills currently being considered on the American legislative landscape: Representative Linda Sanchez’s (D-CA) “Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act” (H.R. 1966) and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) “Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education Act” (H.R. 3630).

Justin and I are personally a big fan of Schultz’s AWARE Act, because education is the most vital and integral component of our nation’s comprehensive plan to address cyberbullying. School professionals, parents, and children should be taught useful, specific strategies to deal with peer conflict online, be armed with the tools to overcome such harassment, and be provided with numerous, readily available outlets and resources to assist them.  I applaud the initiative to educate.  With this said, we simply hope that such efforts are implemented with wisdom informed by empirical research on the topic.

Over the years, numerous educational programs have been implemented nationwide to combat problematic youth behaviors in society.  For instance, the DARE program has, historically speaking, been a mainstay anti-drug initiative for decades, even though the reviews are mixed on its efficacy.  To note, the program has undergone a recent major revision, and is currently being evaluated.  Underage drinking has also been a huge issue, addressed through graphic slideshows of wreck victims or haunting stories from those who have lost loved ones - and it is questionable whether this has made a difference at all since youth are so desensitized to car accidents, injury, and death.  Justin and I just want to make sure that the grants doled out through the AWARE Act actually accomplish their intent - because we have just seen too much wastage and futility in recent years with other educational efforts intended to address social problems among adolescents.  Comprehensive evaluations of program efforts (both process and outcome) must be a condition of funding so that we will know exactly what was done and the effect that it had.

With increased transparency, oversight, and accountability promised by our new President, I want to believe for the best.  I want to believe that we’ll actually do something right this time, and truly stem the tide of the problem at hand.  To accomplish this, we must actively check, measure, analyze, refine, and assess the utility of educational programming implemented to combat cyberbullying.  We hope to lend a hand towards this end, and will keep you updated.

Our colleague Adam Thierer from the Progress & Freedom Foundation has recently published an informative white paper worth reading entitled “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation.” Justin and I keep having to point out in various conversations that strictly punitive strategies fall short in their effort to deter misbehavior, especially among a youthful population that does not tend to think about long-term implications or consequences.  We continue to champion efforts to educate and raise awareness among youth, and believe that formal research must continually occur to identify patterns and trends in cyberbullying while also discovering its causes and consequences across large groups of adolescents. Along these lines, in the next few weeks we’ll be sharing with you our most recent findings from data collected in May of this year.