Blog

This is a common question I receive from many parents: “At what age should I give my child a cell phone or allow them to be on Facebook?” Of course this is not an easy question to answer since every child is different and parents themselves are probably in the best position to determine the most appropriate age. That said, I usually advise parents to think about allowing access to certain devices or web environments a little bit earlier than they might think is the right time. The issue really is that parents need to be the ones who introduce the technology to the child, not the youth’s peers. If parents wait too long or try to convince themselves that their child has no interest in Facebook, then odds are good that the child will learn about the site from a friend and set up a profile without the parent’s knowledge.

I recently spoke to a teacher who is a parent of a 5th grader who asked my opinion about whether her son should be on Facebook. I told her that it probably wasn’t a good idea. It is a violation of Facebook’s terms of use, and agree with them or not, parents shouldn’t encourage their children to break the rules. Thankfully there are many other emerging sites that are designed exclusively for tweens, such as togetherville, which interfaces with Facebook. Admittedly, it is difficult to get younger social networkers excited about these alternatives since “all of their friends are already on Facebook.”

And some data suggests that they are right: Consumer Reports recently reported that as many as 13% of Facebook’s American users are under the age of 13 (about 7.5 million kids). And half or more of the students I speak to Facebook hasn’t completely ignored their rules, however, as they reportedly remove tens of thousands of under-aged youth every day. Of course if a user lies about his or her age when setting up the profile, it is very difficult for Facebook to know whether someone is underage so they rely on reports of violators.

This leads to another question I get: “If I see a person on Facebook who I know to be under 13, should I report the user?” This too is a complicated question. My response used to automatically be “yes.” If they are violating the rules, they should not be on the site. I have tempered my response a bit in recent months, informed by insights from colleagues, educators, and Internet safety experts. In general, whether or not to report an under-aged user depends on whether you have a concern about them being on the site—based on what you know about the user and/or what you see on his or her profile. If you are worried that their activities on Facebook could lead to significant social, educational, physical, or other problems, then you have an obligation to report (to the site or the youth’s parents, or both). If you see a 12-year-old whom you know well who is on the site and they have their privacy settings adjusted so that all of their information is protected to the maximum extent possible, perhaps it isn’t necessary to report the user. You still might want to take the person aside and talk about some of the concerns you have (posting too much personal or identifiable information, meeting someone in real life who they only know online, including gossiping or harassing content, etc.) to encourage him or her to continue making good decisions about their online activities. As Larry Magid, tech journalist and internet safety advocate points out, changing the rules to allow younger users on Facebook would create opportunities for the site to incorporate protections that just aren’t in place when kids lie about their age. This is certainly a perspective that should be considered.

Overall, parents should provide gradual and guided access to technology. Maybe, for example, you give your son a cell phone at age 10, but to start the only persons he can call are mom and dad. After a couple of months if he demonstrates appropriate behaviors you can add selected others. Then add texting. Show him the cell phone bill every month so he knows his contribution to the family expenses. Stress that the phone is a privilege that can be taken away with misuse. If he makes a mistake, take a step back. If he is texting at the dinner table, explain to him why this is unacceptable. If he is talking to friends all hours of the night, confiscate the phone for a while. I suspect that if more parents were actively involved in encouraging the responsible use of technology, even at a relatively young age, there would be fewer and less serious problems later in their adolescent lives.

I was a guest on the New Hampshire Public Radio show “Word of Mouth” with Virginia Prescott this morning where I talked about the proposed Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.  You can listen to the brief interview here.  They were gracious enough to send me some potential questions a couple of hours before the interview so I knew what to expect.  Here is a short summary of my responses (even though some of these questions were not ultimately asked):

LORI DREW, THE ADULT DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, WAS FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING MYSPACE’S TERMS-OF-SERVICE… AND ALSO THE “FEDERAL COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT” – ESSENTIALLY AN ANTI-HACKING LAW.  SINCE THERE ARE NO FEDERAL LAWS AGAINST CYBERBULLYING, HOW DO STATES CURRENTLY APPROACH THE ISSUE?

Most states have simply directed school districts to deal with the problem.  They have passed legislation recommending or requiring local school districts to update their harassment and bullying policies to include electronic variants. Unfortunately they have stopped short of providing concrete information regarding when and how schools can respond.  For example, it’s pretty clear that students who use school owned equipment or technology (such as email addresses), or who are on campus when they cyberbully are subject to school discipline.  But what about students who engage in cyberbullying using their own computers on their own time in their bedroom at home?  Does the school have a responsibility or right to discipline the bully in this case?  This is unclear, though there is some existing case law to suggest that if the cyberbullying results in a “substantial disruption” at school that it is then subject to school discipline.  But what exactly is a substantial disruption?  If you are cyberbullying me, Virginia, away from school but we are in the same class at school, clearly my ability to learn is being substantially disrupted.  Nevertheless, I’m not sure this would meet the standard.  These issues need to be clarified.

SINCE MANY OF THESE LAWS ARE LIMITED TO ONLINE HARASSMENT THAT TAKES PLACE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KIDS GO HOME AND USE THEIR LAPTOPS OR CELL PHONES?

That is one of the biggest problems.  Most cyberbullying incidents are initiated or escalated away from school.  Clearly parents have a major role to play in preventing and responding to these behaviors.  Nevertheless, I still feel that schools can be involved as well—at least informally (though parent/principal conferences, education, etc).  And in certain circumstances, like when the behaviors do result in a substantial disruption at school, more formal discipline may be allowed.

ARE THERE ANY STATES WHERE A SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN TAKE ACTION AGAINST AN ADULT?

I am not aware of any state where schools can take action against adults for cyberbullying.  I assume you are referring to a situation where a parent would be somehow disciplined for the actions of their child—again, I am not aware of any such law.  And I don’t know of any situation where a school could take action against an adult in a case like the Lori Drew cyberbullying incident.

GETTING BACK TO THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT’S ON THE TABLE, CONGRESSWOMAN LINDA SANCHEZ HAS PROPOSED A BILL WOULD MAKE IT A FELONY TO “INTIMIDATE OR HARASS SOMEONE USING ELECTRONIC MEANS… AS PART OF A PATTERN OF REPEATED AND HOSTILE BEHAVIOR.”  WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN?

This is the big question—what exactly does that mean?  One of the problems with the proposal is that it can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people.  This is something we have been wrestling with for years: how to come up with a sufficient, concise, and clear definition of cyberbullying.  Due to the nature of the behaviors, any comprehensive definition of cyberbullying risks being too broad.  And lawyers and judges don’t like broad laws.  In spirit, I like the proposed bill.  I’m glad that there is a national discussion about cyberbullying.  Unfortunately, I just don’t think it will hold up in court.

THIS BILL WAS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED IN MAY 2008, BUT IT DIED IN COMMITTEE.  NOW THE BILL HAS SEVENTEEN CO-SPONSORS.  WHY DO YOU THINK MORE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE SUPPORTING IT THIS TIME AROUND?

I think there have been several high profile cases of cyberbullying over the last year and more and more people are as a result beginning to recognize its harmful nature.  Again, this is a good thing.  Even if this proposal isn’t successful, I am glad to see that we are moving in the direction of identifying cyberbullying as something society would like to prevent and condemn.

ON HIS BLOG, UCLA PROFESSOR OF LAW EUGENE VOLOKH ARGUES THAT THIS BILL IS TOO BROAD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.  HE SAYS IT COULD BE USED AGAINST ANYONE WHO SENDS ANGRY EMAILS TO A POLITICIAN OR STARTS A BLOG THAT REPEATEDLY CRITICIZES A COMPANY.  COULD THIS BILL LIMIT FREE SPEECH?

That is the biggest concern.  We always have to balance free speech with responsible speech.  We also have to remember that while students at school don’t “leave their free speech rights at the school house gate,” the rules are different.  Schools have a role to play in teaching students appropriate means of discourse and communication.  They can limit speech that is threatening, offensive, or counter to their educational mission at school.  And once again, if that speech occurs away from school but results in a substantial disruption at school, the school has the authority to respond.

CONGRESSWOMAN SANCHEZ DEFENDED HER BILL ON THE HUFFINGTON POST LAST WEEK.  SHE WROTE, “WHEN SO-CALLED FREE SPEECH LEADS TO BULLIES HAVING FREE-REIGN TO THREATEN KIDS, IT’S TIME TO ACT.”  JUSTIN, YOUR BLOG FOCUSES ON THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE HARASSMENT.  DO YOU AGREE THAT IT’S TIME FOR ACTION?

Yes, I agree that it is time for action.  I agree 100% with what congresswoman is saying, I’m just unsure that this particular bill will be the best means toward that end.  I talk to victims of cyberbullying all of the time.  I have spoken to Tina Meier, I know what cyberbullying has done to her life.  We need to take action.  In my view, however, most of the action needs to be at the local level—parents, schools, and other local community members need to get involved in preventing and responding to cyberbullying.  Only in rare cases will cyberbullying rise to the level where criminal intervention is necessary.  And in most cases there already exists sufficient laws to prosecute based on these circumstances (harassment or stalking laws, for example).  I would hate to see a 15-year-old get sent to jail for 2 years for engaging in typical cyberbullying.

WHAT WOULD A GOOD PIECE CYBERBULLYING LEGISLATION LOOK LIKE, IN YOUR OPINION?

I good piece of legislation would clearly define cyberbullying in a way that is clear, concise, and comprehensive.  Again, this is a big challenge, but this definition should be based on the growing body of evidence emerging from cyberbullying research.  I would like the legislation to clearly spell out the circumstances under which schools can get involved in cyberbullying cases—especially when they occur away from school.  Good legislation would require schools to educate students about the responsible use of technology—and provide funding for that purpose.  Whose responsibility is it to teach kids to use computers and cell phones responsibly?  Again, parents have a role, but often-times their kids know more about the technology than they do.  Since schools are often providing access to computers and/or requiring students to utilize technology to complete school work, they have a responsibility as well to teach youth to use it responsibly.

BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS COULD BE PROSECUTED UNDER THIS BILL.  IF IT DOES BECOME LAW, WOULD THE THREAT OF BEING SENT TO JAIL DETER KIDS FROM HARASSING EACH OTHER ONLINE?

It is unlikely that children (or adults for that matter) would be deterred from engaging in cyberbullying because of this law.  In order to act as a deterrent, a punishment needs to be certain, swift, and sufficiently severe.  While our criminal justice system has been very good at ratcheting up the severity of punishments, there is very little certainty or swiftness of punishment in our system.  It is more likely that students will be deterred by the potential disapproval of parents or peers than any formal criminal justice sanction.  As such, we need to create a culture where all forms of harassment are viewed by society as taboo.

You’ve probably heard about the proposed law in New Jersey that would require social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to police their users.  This is so frustrating for me to hear, as well-intentioned but oft-misguided legislators propose solutions to overblown online fears.  Social networking sites are not responsible for actively surveilling and censoring the content that users post within their web-based environments because of the federal Communications Decency Act (Section 230).  This 1996 law has been interpreted to state that Internet service providers are not legally liable for user content because they do not hold the role of “Publisher” or “Speaker” of that material.   Providers will, however, quickly respond if Terms of Service violations (in the form of cyberbullying, pornography, or hate speech) are brought to their attention, but they are not legally required to self-regulate offending content created by a third party.

This proposed law tickles the ears of politicians and the general public, but is largely useless since federal law will trump state law and so much Internet-based communication crosses over state and national lines – leading to jurisdictional issues.  It is also problematic in the way it attempts to restrict free speech.  It defines “harassing communication” as “any communication which is directed at a specific person, serves no legitimate purpose, and a reasonable person would believe is intended to threaten, intimidate or harass another person.”  That is tremendously vague and would likely open the door to hundreds of frivolous claims that do not approach accurate conceptions of “cyberbullying.”

It is not an effective use of taxpayers’ money and everyone’s time to pass these types of bills, as they will fall far short of their intended impact.  Our colleague Nancy Willard has been spearheading an initiative to bring researchers together to discuss these types of issues in front of more major public policy officials, so that those officials are equipped to come up with solutions that can actually make a difference.  As Justin and I get more face time with state officials across the nation, we’ll keep you updated.

As you may know, Facebook recently altered its Terms of Service, essentially stating that they own all of the content that you (the user) upload to their site.  This includes content that you’ve uploaded but then later removed, and your content after you have chosen to delete your account.  The Terms of Service in other popular social networking and interactive Web 2.0 sites tend to indicate that you still own your content when you upload/post/share in their environment.  Today, Facebook has decided to go back to its original Terms of Service while they wrestle with some of the issues and outcry that have resulted from their intended change.  This reversal is a good thing.  I think we have to remember that Facebook is a private entity intent on making a profit (somehow!) in the months and years to come.  While we all use the site and benefit from the ability to have a virtual representation of ourselves online to connect with others, there may come a time when we must pay a cost for that benefit.  This cost may leave us without full charge of the information we have chosen to share (or have shared) with others – and this might come around to keep us from an opportunity, get us in trouble, or otherwise bring us embarrassment or harm.  Sometimes I think that with all of the privacy settings we modify and adjust for our text content, pictures, and videos (and Facebook has so many settings!), we are lured into a false sense of security related to what we truly control. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, especially if you use Facebook frequently….