Justin and I have been focusing a lot on what I like to call “Facebook Faux Pas” - or, in general, unwise practices on social networking, social media, and microblogging sites. A new site has been receiving a lot of attention lately - PleaseRobMe.com. Check it out at your convenience. Basically, it runs a simple script on Twitter.com to identify and aggregate posts pushed through from one geosocial networking site (Foursquare.com) where users have “checked in” or otherwise updated their current location through their mobile device’s GPS functionality. Individuals, of course, post these updates to quickly and conveniently inform their friends as to where they are, or where they are going to be. Obviously, though, revealing of one’s location (or one’s absence from home) may increase the risk of personal victimization or property theft - or both.
When giving talks to youth, I share plenty of real-world examples of how teenagers and young adults unwittingly allow a dossier of contact information to be collected about them through the connecting of their candid posts and messages online. To note, we’ve actively researched this happening on social networking sites in papers here and here. To be sure, our research has found that youth overall are becoming more discerning and protective with the contact information they share, but our studies have not included microblogging sites and the content of status updates. If that is the case, those intent on bullying, abusing, or otherwise harming others have an increasing (or at least steady) amount of access to a meaningful number of potential victims based on those victims’ participation within cyberspace. In criminology, we have a subfield termed “victimology” that focuses in on how individuals contribute to their own victimization through negligence, precipitation, or provocation. It seems very applicable as a paradigmatic lens through which to view all of this.
It is remarkable to think how far we have come in such a short period of time as it relates to our level of comfort in sharing personal information online. Ten years ago, individuals were concerned with sharing their primary email address for fear of spam (and usually had a secondary email address which they more often used across the Web). Posting one’s first and last name back then was a rarity, as anonymity and pseudonymity were more commonly preferred and adopted. Now, because of Facebook and similar sites, most of us seem tremendously comfortable using our full name in cyberspace - and posting so much more about who, what, when, why, and where we are. Youth who have grown up with these technologies are even more inclined towards full disclosure, and so we have GOT to get them thinking about what they type, send, and post before their actions inadvertently invite harm.
We’ve had quite a bit of feedback regarding our recent post that discussed whether or not schools can discipline students for creating a Facebook page that is critical of, or harassing toward, a staff member. The courts have given their perspective on a few different cases, but I thought I would post this simple poll for readers to weigh in themselves regarding their personal beliefs about what should or should not be allowed. Feel free to add the justification for your answer as a comment.
(if you don’t see a poll below, please try again later…we have been having trouble with the polling software)
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.
I greatly enjoyed being a part of a distinguished panel of guests at the National Crime Prevention Council’s Circle of Respect event on Friday, January 15th in Washington, DC. Speaking alongside Deborah Norville (the anchor of Inside Edition), Chris Moessner (a very experienced researcher and Senior Vice President with Stewart and Partners), Rachel Simmons (author of Odd Girl Out and The Curse of the Good Girl), and Rosalind Wiseman (author of Queen Bees and Wannabees) was extremely enjoyable and enlightening.
Ann M. Harkins (National Crime Prevention Council’s President and CEO) emceed the event and it really was perfect how each speaker’s contribution led smoothly into the next contribution, and how together they built a comprehensive picture of the relevant issues surrounding bullying, relational aggression, cyberbullying, sexting, and respect. All of my fellow panelists knew their stuff, and it was refreshing that no one shared cliched statements about Internet safety that everyone already knows. What was shared was based on critical and original thoughts, and I loved that.
The majority of my prepared remarks are below. We only had a few minutes to cover a great deal - and so I was constrained in all that I would have liked to say. To note, I also covered the concept of social norming as a solution in reducing the misuse of technology by youth, but I want to save those sentiments for an expanded and exclusive blog entry in the very near future.
<PREPARED REMARKS>
Thank you for the opportunity to be on this panel of distinguished guests, and to be able to share with you on the topics of cyberbullying and sexting. Adolescents have been bullying each other for generations. The latest generation, however, has been able to utilize technology to expand their reach and the extent of their harm. This phenomenon is being called cyberbullying, which we define as: “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” In general, cyberbullying is bullying carried out using these technologies.
In our research, we have found that:
• Approximately 15-35% of youth have been victims of cyberbullying
• About 10-20% of youth admit to cyberbullying others
• That girls are just as likely, if not more likely, to be involved in cyberbullying as boys
• That involvement seems to peak in the middle school years (grades 6-8)
• And that most victims know, or at least think they know, who the cyberbully is.
Our research studies have consistently demonstrated that cyberbullying bears significant real-world consequences. Specifically, we have found that cyberbullying leads to negative emotions such as sadness, anger, frustration, and fear, which have been linked to delinquency and interpersonal violence among youth. Cyberbullying has also been tied to low self-esteem and suicidal ideation, problems with academic achievement, substance use and abuse, traditional bullying, carrying a weapon to school, and other forms of school violence.
I have also been asked to speak about the phenomenon of sexting. We define sexting as “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.”
The actual extent of sexting among youth is somewhat unclear when looking across existing studies, and varies depending on how sexting is defined, whether it includes only cell phone use or other forms of online communication, the specific age group studied, and the study’s methodology and sampling. We have seen estimates as low as 4% and as high as 19% for the proportion of youth who have sent a sexually suggestive picture or video of themselves to someone else. We have seen estimates as low as 15% and as high as 31% for the proportion of youth who have received a sexually suggestive picture or video from someone else. Our Cyberbullying Research Center is currently collecting data from a random sample of middle- and high-schoolers this week and next week, and will then be able to share with you a demographic and personality profile of those most likely to participate in sexting, contributive factors that make some youth more susceptible than others, and the range of consequences that can befall victims.
Sexting is largely an adolescent development issue. Youth seek to figure out who they are and what they stand for during this tenuous period of life, and the process by which this occurs is greatly dependent upon cues from their social environment. That is, peer perceptions and cultural norms are a large determinant in their own self-worth. As such, adolescents often seek to present themselves to their peers in a way that attracts positive attention and increases social status. This then serves to meet their inherent needs for affection, affirmation, and validation.
A teenage girl might hesitate for a moment when asked to send a semi-nude or nude picture of herself to a boyfriend or boy she’s interested in, but if it may improve that boy’s perception of her and consequently her perception of herself – and if it is deemed socially acceptable - she may do it. This problem is exacerbated by the incessant cultural messages that describe and promote teen sexuality in arguably unhealthy ways - where “hooking up” may be preferred over “dating”, and where having personal privacy boundaries is viewed as “old-school” and “lame.” My fellow panelists have keenly pointed out that respect – especially self-respect, or the lack thereof - also perpetuates this problem.
A few states are using traditional child pornography statutes to prosecute youth who engage in sexting. Many argue these actions are outside of the original intentions of legislators who formulated the laws to prosecute adults who prey on youth. Others believe that such strict interpretation of existing law is necessary in order to prevent tragedies like the Jesse Logan case from Ohio and the Hope Witsell case from Florida, both recent suicides stemming from sexting.
Similarly, school districts are seeking to reduce sexting through formal policies. Based on my experience working with youth, and having been a youth myself, I don’t believe that formal law and policy is the best way to go - because adolescents tend not to be deterred by rules and laws. It just doesn’t work as well as we would like to think. I also don’t want the presence of law and policy to take the place of purposed educational efforts to teach teens about the responsible use of technology. This sometimes happens when laws or policies are implemented as a way of quickly “dealing” with an issue, without understanding its fundamental causes.
I believe in the need for education and outreach to change prevailing social norms regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable in the minds of youth. I feel that our prevention and response efforts are going to be less than ideal if we cannot effectively counter what society is hammering into the minds of adolescents. If the dominant message our kids are hearing is that teen sexuality leads to romantic love, personal fulfillment, popularity, and celebrity status with very little (if any) public or personal fallout, youth will continue to push the proverbial envelope and the line between right and wrong in this area will be increasingly obscured. I believe that social norming can counter this, and can help youth cultivate a deeper measure of self-respect. This will serve as an insulating factor against participation in sexting and help them to stand firm when faced with very strong peer and cultural pressures.
I am pleased to be partnering with the National Crime Prevention Council in their far-reaching efforts to address the problems of cyberbullying and sexting, and believe that together we are making a very tangible difference through research, education, and outreach. Thank you for your time and attention.
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.
If you’ve logged into Facebook over the last few hours, you may have noticed an open letter from its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The letter discusses forthcoming improvements to better safeguard the experience and participation of users on the site. We at the Cyberbullying Research Center highly approve of these changes, and believe they will assist in reducing online harassment and youth vulnerability to victimization.
While they will be discussed in greater detail after the rollout, Zuckerberg indicated that regional networks will be eliminated, since many networks have thousands and millions of members and therefore allow more openness and visibility in profiles than may be preferred by some users. Secondly, they will be consolidating all of the privacy and security settings into a few (or maybe even one?) page. Currently, they are scattered across numerous screens, and I would say it takes users a solid 15-20 minutes to go through each screen and completely lock down their profile to their preferences. Finally, Facebook will allow us to control who out there sees any and every single individual piece of content (note, picture, video, etc.) you upload or create. This is fantastic, and has been heavily requested for months now.
Facebook has impressed me with the granular level of control it has historically allowed individuals, and this feature will take social networking security to the next level. Presumably, their privacy initiatives and mechanisms will also serve as a model for other Web 2.0 sites to emulate.
I’ve noticed a lot of schools now have their own Facebook pages. Here are some examples: Ramblewood Middle School; Da Vinci Arts Middle School; Lincoln High School. These pages are generally created by teachers, school administrators, or school counselors as a virtual gathering place to students and staff. Does your school have one?
I can clearly see many advantages of connecting with students using the medium they are using. Teens are on Facebook everyday, and creating a portal from which they can connect with their schoolmates could certainly be a positive thing. School Facebook pages can create online communities for current and former students where they can communicate about various issues and display school pride. Furthermore, important school information can be posted to these pages (sports schedules, early dismissals, lunch menus, etc.). Student creative work, such as art, writing, or videos, also can be uploaded for all to see.
All that said, there could be problems or potential issues associated with having a school Facebook page. For example, if a student becomes a fan of the school Facebook page and has evidence of violations of school policy or the law on her own Facebook page, does the school employee moderating the school page have an obligation to report that evidence to the school or police? What if a teacher sees a message on a student’s page that says there will be a party where alcohol will be served at another student’s house on Friday night? Should (or must) the teacher call the parents of students with questionable material or would there be school consequences (such as removal from sports teams) for inappropriate information? Is it better that teachers simply don’t know what their students are doing away from the classroom?
In general, I believe the potential benefits would outweigh the risks and challenges associated with school Facebook pages. To be sure, school officials who set up Facebook pages need to clearly understand their responsibilities in the event they observe inappropriate conduct or information and students too need to understand these issues as well. As long as appropriate guidelines are established and adhered to, school Facebook pages could be a beneficial way to communicate with students (and parents) using a medium they are already very comfortable with. What do you think?
Just wanted to point out this new article sharing the story of a high-schooler who responded to a friend’s status update on Facebook, and consequently received a ridiculous sanction from his school for it. He basically stated “you’re not going to bust a grape” - indicating to his friend (who posted about fighting another girl at school) that it was just a joke, and that she wasn’t actually going to *do* anything despite her threatening words. The student - who is in Honors classes and who participated in a summer internship at USC this year - was then suspended for the rest of the school year, thereby jeopardizing his graduation date and future scholastic ambitions.
I believe that the school will likely be civilly sued by the family of the boy for overstepping their disciplinary bounds. I believe they should have taken the time to calmly ascertain what was meant by the statement made on Facebook, and attempted to address it informally rather than through suspension. This may be a case of administrators hoping to send a powerful message to the rest of the student body, but grossly overreacting and doling out a punishment incommensurate with the nature and context of the offense.
Justin and I study and work to reduce various forms of deviance and crime on social networking sites, and this recent article on CNN.com prompted me to talk about some of the issues therein.
The main thrust of the story is that cybercriminals are now using Facebook and Twitter to victimize unsuspecting individuals through “phishing” techniques, where targets click on a link and are taken to a site that convinces them to reveal personal information. This parallels the phenomenon of email phishing, where people receive what appears to be legitimate communication from their bank, cable Internet company, or an e-commerce site like eBay asking them to follow a link to fix a time-critical password/account/payment problem by typing in their private data.
The criminal usage of these links (and the convincing content that surrounds them) can be characterized as social engineering, which often involves some amount of emotional pressure to lead an individual to make a quick online decision based on invalid or unvalidated information. Undergirding these schemes is the promotion of urgency - basically saying that if you don’t click on this link and do the needful immediately, you’ll lose online access, or your reputation may be damaged, or you’ll suffer from other serious consequences.
The bottom line is that we need to make sure that we cautiously evaluate the legitimacy of the sites we visit from links within Facebook and Twitter. If you think you might actually have a password/account/payment problem on a site, go to that site directly (i.e., type the URL into your browser’s address bar) rather than clicking on a link to get there. Secondly, use your browser’s (Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera) built-in anti-phishing features to verify the legitimacy of sites that you visit (whether directly linked from a social networking or microblogging site, or accessed another way).
Web 2.0 sites have provided us with many benefits, but are now being exploited to perpetrate identity theft and fraud. Carefully think about what you’re doing - and the validity of the information being presented to you - as you follow links across the WWW from these online environments.
We’ve been discussing the recent case in Britain involving 18-year-old Keeley Houghton, who posted a death threat on Facebook and was subsequently incarcerated. Specifically, the aggressor wrote the following on her own profile page, “Keeley is going to murder the bitch. She is an actress. What a ******* liberty. Emily ****head Moore.”
Those with whom I’ve talked are split on whether they agree with this sanction. In this case there had been a pattern of bullying behavior displayed by the aggressor against the target, who had been harassed face to face several times before the online incident occurred. Some may argue that free speech is being usurped, but just as you don’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, you don’t threaten someone’s life in writing for the whole world to see. I think it’s correct for threats of this magnitude - whether physical or verbal to be taken seriously, as they may preempt needless and senseless violence. No threat should be taken lightly or regarded as meritless, and even those which may have been said in jest should be investigated and, if necessary, punished in some capacity. In this case, jail time was assigned. Will Keeley be deterred from doing something similar in the future? Will her friends, after hearing about what happened and seeing the reality of someone they know locked up? Will others across Britain who read or hear about the news story? I do believe this sends a message, and that some youth will definitely think more carefully about engaging in a similar behavior while communicating in cyberspace.
