Federal Anti-Cyber Bullying Laws Needed to Stop Harassment, Bullying and Abuse

According to the Wall Street Journal article, “CyberBullying Report Opposes Regulation,” a recent report on cyberbullying suggests that, unlike other Internet scares, this one is well-founded, but it questions some of the regulatory efforts that are gathering steam.  “The report, by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a right-leaning Washington think tank that focuses on technology public policy, says that data from child-safety researchers” indicate that much of the furor is overblown. I disagree strongly: The furor is not overblown and we do need Federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The right-leaning think tank’s objections to new anti-cyber bullying laws are that:

• Worries over online predators are overblown because one study of arrests from 2000 to 2006 showed that most of the offenders approached undercover investigators, not kids.  I’m glad the offenders approached undercover investigators.  But that’s no reason not to have laws.  Between 2006 and now, offenders have gotten smarter.  And, of course we want laws so we can protect the kids who are approached.
• They estimate that threats due to peer-to-peer bullying are more serious than those due to cyber bullying.  Even if that’s true, that’s no reason to abandon kids who are targets of cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.  As shown by the case of Lori Drew, without Federal laws, cyber bullies can’t be prosecuted effectively.  The Judge acquitted this adult even though she set up the MySpace site that was used to harass and abuse teenager Megan Meier until she committed suicide.
• Laws pose “thorny issues” that are entwined with free speech.  Again, that’s no reason not to enter the thicket.  That simply lets us know that the laws will have gray areas and both the law and the interpretations will be continuously evolving as hardened criminals find loopholes.  Laws encourage angry, potentially vindictive people to think twice before doing anything impulsive and rash.
• Laws would make statements that defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties illegal online, even though such statements would be allowed if said on a playground.  That’s not a problem; that’s an obvious benefit.  That acknowledges the truism that statements made in a local context or face-to face usually have very different consequences than hostility put out to the whole world on the internet, especially if the statements are anonymous or made through the safety of false identities.
• We can solve the problem best through better education.  Nonsense.  Of course, education and vigorous stop-bullies programs are very helpful, but they’re not enough.  Education alone does not yield the most benefits.  Education, anti-bullying programs and enforced laws all together yield the most benefits.
• Teaching people to behave civilly online is no different than teaching children to use proper table manners, to cover their mouths when they sneeze or to say, “thank you.”  That’s also nonsense.  If an adult is a slob at home, no one else is harmed.  If someone gets drunk and disruptive at a restaurant, a movie theater or a ball game, they can be asked to leave or ejected or arrested.  The harm caused by eating with the wrong fork or not saying “please” or “thank you” is minor compared to the harm that can be caused by cyber bullying, harassment or abuse.  Ask the families of Megan Meier or Jessica Logan, both of whom committed suicide after they were made the targets of cyber bullying.  Ask the families of the thousands we don’t hear about them in the media.  They suffer, helpless to stop their abusers, but valiantly and quietly to struggle through life.

Online attacks are becoming an epidemic.  Some sites even specialize as forums for anonymous bashing and attacks.

Laws are made to state the standards to which we aspire and to diminish people’s ability to harm others as much as possible.  Laws may be imperfect and enforcement may be difficult and spotty, but that’s better than nothing.  I’d rather have anti-bullying laws that protect kids 90% of the time and have difficulties 10% of the time, than have no laws to stop cyber bullying and leave kids vulnerable 100% of the time.

Our laws and even our system of checks and balances are founded on our understanding that no matter how much education people have, they will often seek power and revenge.  They won’t always be good and sweet and kind.  If given the chance, people will be mean, nasty and vicious to others, especially if they can act anonymously or the target can’t fight back effectively.

We must rise to the challenge posed by new technology and keep evolving laws and enforcing them the best we can.  We must stop cyber bullying.

Transforming a Community in the Wake of School Abuse, Bullying and Suicides

Here’s a new slant on the cluster of suicides of four teenage girls from Schenectady High School, New York, that was stimulated by abuse and bullying in school and a war-zone environment outside school. Instead of working together to transform the school and the neighborhood environment, Rev. Veron House, pastor of the Life Changes World Ministries in Schenectady, and school superintendent, Eric Ely, are arguing over who was to blame and who should be responsible for fixing the problem.

Rev. House has been quoted as saying, “This is not a community problem, this is not a church problem, this is a school problem, and this is becoming a school epidemic because everyone that has done this is from Schenectady High."

On the defensive, Superintendent Ely responded, "We're not the parents of these children.  We have them a third of the time, parents have them two thirds of the time. We're going to do everything we can to keep it from happening. But ultimately, when a child goes home and takes their life, there's not a whole lot a school employee can do about that."

Who’s right?  Of course both of them are right.  But facing each other with finger-pointing makes both of them wrong.

The useful question is not who’s to blame and who should be punished, the people in the neighborhood or the principal and teachers in school.  The better question is how to bring people together after numerous and tremendously painful deaths, in order to create a community that simply won’t tolerate hate and violence in the school or on the streets.  Here in Denver, after the massacre at Columbine High School, it has taken 10 years for that healing spirit to become evident.

This question is not new.  The difficulty of establishing a safe and functional communal life after multiple, horrible deaths has been part of human struggles since the beginning of time.  For example, we see the same struggle in the families of Romeo and Juliet.

Even further back, the same subject and a wise solution are described in graphic detail in the three tragedies called the Oresteia, written by Aeschylus in 458 BC.  In the Agamemnon, the Libation Bearers and the Eumenides, the murders are for different reasons than in Schenectady and Columbine High School, but the end effect is the same.  Violent death rips apart the fabric of a community and people struggle with what to do.

Why do I bring up literature that’s 2,500 years old?  Because the violence of today has also been faced by people in all cultures, times and places, and we have recorded the approaches that only lead to more pain and also the wisdom that points the way to solutions.

Aeschylus shows that the age-old solution – pointing fingers, apportioning blame, imposing punishment, retribution and vengeance – only drives people into separate, warring camps and perpetuates the cycle of violence.  He also shows that only after the people involved have come together, having been transformed by the intense pain and suffering that everyone feels underneath their defensive and hostile poses, can they dedicate themselves to change the environment together.  One line from the tragedy is, “We must suffer, suffer into [wisdom].”

As community leaders, Rev. House and Superintendent Ely are failing in their responsibility.  Instead of analyzing and parsing out the blame, they must lead the community to come together to create a new spirit that will neither tolerate harassment, bullying and abuse at school nor the street violence that requires police and metal detectors at school doors.

Until Rev. House and Superintendent Ely rally a core of outraged students and parents to rid the area of violence, there are no tactics, plans and skills that will help them.  I’d expect Rev. House to know how rituals for painful grieving can transform the hearts of his parishioners into wisdom and determined action.  Only after they have united resolutely to clean up the school and the neighborhood, will expert tactical advice and guidance be productive.

Teen Suicides Stimulated by Harassment and Bullying; Students Unprotected

Two teenagers, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover and Jaheem Herrera, committed suicide recently after being taunted and bullied repeatedly and relentlessly while officials at their schools did nothing. Unrelenting harassment led a third, Eric Mohat, to commit suicide a few years ago. Again, school officials denied there was a bullying problem.  Yet he was one of four bullied Mentor High School students who committed suicide that year.

All three were harassed as gay.  None was.

These three boys are just the most publicized tip of an epidemic that’s sweeping our schools.

The Use of “Gay” as Part of the Harassment and Bullying Kids will use whatever differences they can see or invent in order to gang up and attack a scapegoat.  The teen bullies used whatever came to hand or mouth – their hatred of gays.  In one sense it wasn’t about the truth of whether the targets were gay, which would be bad enough, it was about the truths that kids will use bullying tactics and these never learned better and these weren’t taught better.  Let’s not waste time analyzing why they bullied; let’s simply acknowledge that these kids failed in their character and their duty to become better, and the responsible adults never stopped them.

The Bullies’ Parents They failed in their own character and were derelict in their duties to stop their children’s behavior and to teach them better.

The Administrators, Principals and Teachers The principals and school district administrators didn’t protect these boys, just like most principals don’t protect most targets of bullying and abuse.  We need school anti-bullying laws to force principals to act and also to protect them from counter suits by bullying parents trying to protect their beloved little terrorists (like Lucius Malfoy in the “Harry Potter” series).  Of course, without specific laws, even well-meaning principals are caught in a bind.  But that’s no excuse.  When people are determined, they forge ahead.  When they don’t want to act, they talk about all the difficulties.

The Bystanders In every school, the other kids knew and many watched the bullying firsthand.  Some were probably drawn to participate in the bloodletting.  That’s the path of least resistance.  Few, if any, reported it to teachers or to their parents.  None of their parents responded effectively.  There was no public outcry before the suicides.  Again, there’s a huge failure of character and courage.

I work with parents and principals who dedicate themselves to stop bullying.  They insist on effective laws and also make the laws work effectively.

At the same time, as these examples show, we also can’t and shouldn’t count on schools to protect our children from hurt feelings.  We must help our children develop the inner grit and resilience to know how to protect themselves from verbal harassment as well as from physical abuse.

Act now at your own schools; before this epidemic spreads further.