Ericbrashercom.files.wordpress.com



Eric BrasherApril 29, 2018Legal Concept Paper Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place through use of forums on the internet. Some types of cyberbullying deal with verbal abuse that can take place on cyber messaging platforms such as text messaging, email and social media websites. Cyberbullying also pertains to the sharing of content, in these mediums, about another person that causes the victim emotional distress. DoSomething is a global non-profit organization that tries to spark positive change and make a difference in multiple categories of social issues. In regard to bullying, they have over 15 different programs in tact working to end as many different forms as possible. According to DoSomething, over 40 percent of kids have been bullied online with one in four being repetitive victims. Due to this abuse, cyber victims are anywhere from two to nine times more likely to commit suicide. According to statistics reported by ABC News, nearly 30 percent of all students are either bullies or victims of bullying, and 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying.It’s obvious to see that there’s no positive benefit in cyberbullying and effects can be detrimental to a person’s health. But when it comes to persecuting a cyberbully, delivering sanctions can be murky at times because there are no federal laws in place against cyberbullying. However, every state in the U.S. has laws against some form of general bullying. When it comes to whether certain speech is protected or punishable in the cyberbullying category, the answer will vary depending on what state the violation was committed in. Over 90 percent of the states have written laws against cyberbullying that include school and criminal sanctions. One case that showed how messy the law can get when it comes to cyberbullying occurred in 2011. State v. Bishop involved Robert Bishop, a North Carolina high school student who posted insulting content about fellow classmate Dillon Price on the internet. Most of the comment was meant to associate Price with homophobic nature. Price’s mother contacted local authorities to report the cyberbullying. Bishop was tried and convicted at the district level court. Bishop then appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals who upheld his conviction. At the time in North Carolina, there was a cyberbullying statute established in 2009 to draw a line on speech pertaining to the internet. The statute states that it is against the law to post private, personal or sexual content related to a minor that is also intended to intimidate or torment said minor. This was the law the Bishop was being held accountable for breaking. After losing his appeals at the state level courts, Bishop took his appeal of a violation of his First Amendment rights all the way to the Supreme Court in 2016. It was there the Supreme Court overturned all decisions of the previous courts, siding with Bishop in agreement of the violation of his First Amendment right. The court ultimately decided that the statute restricts certain type of speech from being expressed. This violates the American citizen’s guarantee to freedom of speech. The court saw the persecution being given and identified it as speech based and conduct based. And because the statute did not provide a descriptive test to determine whether a crime was committed without the implication of communication provided, the statute was considered too broad. The statute did not follow strict scrutiny and forbids a wide range of speech online the Supreme Court found to be impermissible. The case decision was reversed, and the statute was ruled void. As can be seen from State v. Bishop, finding the line between what is considered crime or free speech on the internet can be challenging. Defining statutes to protect certain interests, that at the same time qualify along with constitutional law, make for many difficult appeals when it comes to cases of cyberbullying. This type of confusion on judgement was exampled in two very similar cases on parody profiles created by students that received different outcomes from judge panels of the same court. Cyberbullying can take place outside of the student-on-student dynamic, or among peers of the same age. In 2006, high school senior Justin Layshock was suspended for 10 days because of a social media parody page he created impersonating his principal. Layshock was also being forced to finish high school at an alternative school as well as being forbidden to walk with his classmates at graduation. All of these punishments were lifted by the school district, except the suspension, when Layshock’s parents rescinded their motion for preliminary injunction. Layshock appealed the suspension as a violation of his First Amendment rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Layshock in the case of Layshock v. Hermitage School District. The court panel ruled the Myspace page was protected under free speech. The page was also created off-campus and was not deemed to be affecting day-to-day operations at the school.Meanwhile recently after the Layshock decision, Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District was an almost identical case where two middle school students were ruled against when their Myspace parody profile of their principal constructed off-campus was initially considered student speech under violation by the Third Circuit. The teens were appealing their suspension from school when a three-judge panel ruled in favor of the school district by a vote of two to one. The page that was dedicated to make the principal look like a pedophile was found to be filled with vulgar content and in violation of the principal’s rights. The panel decided the speech was unprotected.The appeal was then heard by the Third Circuit en banc which overruled the panel’s decision. The students’ speech was protected because there was no proven disruption of school behavior nor could they protest the page due to fear of future disruption, this was emphasized from the landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines. They also ruled that the content on the page was absurd to an extent that could not be taken seriously from a rational perspective.These two cases show an example of the struggle when it comes delivering to verdicts against online speech. According to Tinker, speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment should not become void when students enter school grounds. If a case of speech were to be suppressed, school officials would have to prove that actions “materially and substantially interfere” with school operations. This was found to be the case in Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools. Kara Kowalski was a senior at Musselman High School in West Virginia. In 2005, she made a Myspace page that “slut shamed” a fellow classmate alleging she had herpes. Over 20 students ended up joining the page and uploading more demeaning content about the victim. After the victim’s parents reported the page to the school, Kowalski was suspended for making a page that violated the school’s policies on harassing another student through means of intimidation. Kowalski then sued the county school district for violating her First Amendment rights.Kowalski’s argument was based on the fact that she produced this page outside of school boundaries and that the school district had no right to punish her. But the Fourth Circuit of Appeals stood by the school’s decision and their ability to act in the manner.The court found Kowalski’s personal attack on a classmate as a direct effect to the school’s environment.As stated earlier, cyberbullying raises the likelihood of a student or person committing suicide. And in 2006, 16-year-old Megan Meier became a case of that reality. Meier was befriended on Myspace by “Josh Evans”, a 16-year-old boy with whom she struck up a playful relationship. But actually, she was really communicating with a fake account that was constructed by Lori Drew, a mother to one of Meier’s close friends.Drew constructed this page in hopes of finding out information about Meier that she could use to embarrass her after it was implied that Meier spread rumors about Drew’s daughter. “Josh Evans” account was operated by Drew, her daughter Sarah, and an employee of Drew’s. After weeks of building up a strong relationship with Meier, the phony account turned on Meier and started sending hurtful messages. The messages were used to portray how bad of a person she was, that no one liked her and that the world would be better off without her in it. Severely hurt and distraught from the messages, Meier hung herself on October 17, 2008.Drew was accused violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act on four different counts in the case United States v. Drew. She was found not guilty after it was determined punishing her for use her computer use would’ve been against the rights of her civil liberties. Basically summarized, she did not breach any access on the internet that was outside of her legal authorization. However, she was found guilty of a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA.Drew’s acts were not criminally indicted for involvement in Meier’s death. The words that were used in the online speech could not be held specifically responsible in the manner that Meier decided to take her own life. Though that does not mean certain speech sent via internet messaging cannot be not be criminally persecuted.In the recent landmark case, Commonwealth v. Carter, 20-year-old Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter through her online actions that helped lead to the death of her ex-boyfriend, Conrad Roy.The couple were involved in a relationship for over two years that took place mostly over the phone. Both Carter and Roy and struggled with their mental health throughout their life. Roy had a history with therapy and medication to help with depression and suicidal thoughts, while Carter struggled with eating disorders. The two connected deeply from being able to share their feelings with each other.Throughout most of the relationship, Carter was very helpful and considerate in encouraging Roy to overcome his depression and suicidal thoughts. But eventually after years persuading him not to take his life, she began motivating and helping him to take action to end his life.She started helping Roy plan the best way to commit suicide while also pressuring him to stay committed to the choice he wanted to make, a choice they were collaborating together. Roy settled on the option of carbon monoxide poisoning; an idea founded by Carter according to text. On Sunday July 13, 2014, Roy drove to a Kmart parking lot planning to poison himself to death. After he parked his truck, he turned on a machine located in the backseat that would release carbon monoxide fumes into the air. As the poisoning process began, Roy became fearful of the choice he was making and decided to get out of the car.He then immediately reached out to Carter to tell her what happened. Carter then implored him to get back in the car to finish what he started. After speaking with Carter, Roy ultimately decided to step back in the car and end his life. He was 18 years old.On February 4, 2015, 17-year-old Carter was indicted for involuntary manslaughter. And a day before her trial was supposed to begin, Carter chose to waive her right to a jury. Leaving her fate be decided solely by Judge Lawrence Moriz. June 16, 2017, Moriz found Carter guilty. In his speech explaining the context of his decision, Moriz said that the actions of instructing Roy through phone conversation to proceed back into his truck, to continue in a situation she was partly responsible for, was reckless conduct. She was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail with five years of probation. I found studying these cases to be really interesting by the way court decisions are made. There are statutes in place all over the country that attempt to lower the amount of cyberbullying, or bullying in general, that occurs on a daily basis. But through these appeal processes I’ve found that it really comes down to the opinion of the particular judge’s ruling on the individual case. And their opinion comes from the best interpretation of what each judge thinks the First Amendment’s jurisdiction is in the case.I cannot say that I definitively disagree with any of the court case decisions I found. But in each case, I found that you could make a reasonable argument that the decision made by the court could have or should have gone the other way, regardless of the outcome. And with that being said, I believe that statement will hold true for all future cases regarding cyberbullying and free speech rights. That is unless a detailed federal law is put into place that can cover all crime dealing with bullying speech. Sort of giving a “black and white” answer code officially announcing nationwide what is or is not protected. Bibliography"Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District."?Oyez,?cases/1968/21. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019.Steinhauer, Jennifer. "Verdict in Myspace Suicide Case." , The New York Times, 6 Nov. 2008, 2008/11/27/us/27myspace.html. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. "Layshock v. Hermitage School District." , Education Law Association, featured-caselaw/6526-layshock-v-hermitage-school-district. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. "Bullying and Suicide." , Bullying Statistics, content/bullying-and-suicide.html. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. "Laws, Policies & Regulations." , stop , 7 Jan. 2018, laws. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019."Is Cyberbullying Legal in Your State?" , Gaggle, speaks/ is-cyberbullying-illegal-in-your-state/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. "Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools." ca4., US Courts, 27 July 2011, ca4.Opinions/Published/101098.P.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. Lowrey, Michael. "Court: Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment." , Carolina Journal, 21 July 2016, news-article/ court-cyberbullying-law-violates-first-amendment/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. "State v. Bishop." scholar., Google Scholar, 10 June 2016, scholar. scholar_case?case=3633068708687604280&q=cyberbullying&hl=en&as_sdt=8000006. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019Etcovitch, Daniel. "Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter: Involuntary Manslaughter Conviction for Encouraging Suicide Over Text and Phone." jolt.law.harvard.edu, edited by Carol Lin, Jolt Digest, 25 June 2017, cases/sjc/474/474mass624.html. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019Ellement, John R., and Travis Andersen. "Mass. High Court Upholds Michelle Carter Ruling." , The Boston Globe, 6 Feb. 2019, metro/2019/02/06/ sjc-rule-case-michelle-carter-convicted-involuntary-manslaughter-death-year-old-man/ jmOuFii7iTZFKrnEXPzzAM/story.html. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download