Walls Into Windows: Potential Solutions to Cyberbullying and Building a Healthy Community

Subject:

In addressing cyberbullying as a real social and psychological issue, I recommend using existing and model anti-bullying laws for a three-pronged solution to cyberbullying: a system for prevention, building awareness, and encouraging community involvement.

Summary:

Taking legislative steps based on past successful legislation, aimed at prevention, awareness, and community involvement is the best available option for solving the issue of cyberbullying. and key implementation needs. The below memo combines the societal and psychological causes and effects of bullying, as well as its adaptations to the “world of cyber” to build a case that cyberbullying, is an issue that needs solving, and that it is not a simple issue to solve. Implementation will require a combination of actors and legislative efforts.

Problem:

While the personal effects of cyberbullying are great, the real issue of cyberbullying is its perception in the status quo as a minor problem that can be relegated to the “back burner”, so to speak. Instead, both research and recent events have highlighted the important fact that cyberbullying holds a very real impact in the very real world.

The problem can be most exposed by a brief look at the harmful effects and consequences of cyberbullying victimization. In their book, Beyond Bullying in the Schoolyard, Hinduja & Patchin show the most common consequences as “lower self-esteem, increased suicidal ideation, and a variety of emotional responses, retaliating, being scared, frustrated, angry, and depressed” (2009). Additionally, one of the “most damaging effects” is an avoidance of friends and social activities, which is often the intention of cyberbullies (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). As we shall see below, their several examples where cyberbullying has been linked to adolescent suicidality. The psychological effect of cyberbullying is summed up in the words of Young Minds, a charity aimed at policy and participation in youth mental health:

When someone says nasty things healthy people can filter that out, they're able to put a block between that and their self-esteem. But mentally unwell people don't have the strength and the self-esteem to do that, to separate it, and so it gets compiled with everything else. To them, it becomes the absolute truth – there's no filter, there's no block. That person will take that on, take it as fact. (Berson & Ferron, 2002).

Cyberbullying may take place in a remote “location”, but it still has an effect on the psychology of the victim and the makeup of the surrounding society. As such, the issue of cyberbullying must be considered in the same terms as other societal problems: its effect on persons, society, and law, and justice. Viewing cyberbullying in this light calls for the solution outlined above and below – prevention, awareness, and involvement. Each of these aspects will challenge the status quo conception of cyberbullying and must be reached by means of organizational, policy, and legislative changes. If the problem goes unaddressed, cyberbullying will grow in both magnitude and occurrence.

Context:

Below are the crucial facts regarding the problem of cyberbullying: its origins, its expression, its effects, and responses to it. Examining the social, psychological, legal and definitional context for cyberbullying gives the best reasoning for a needed alternative to the status quo.

Cyberbullying, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, is the use of information technologies to “harm or harass other people in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner.” As such, cyberbullying could be limited to simply posting rumors, or specifically identifying victims with an aim of defamation.

Given the cyberbullying is dependent upon information technologies, it follows that the increase in the use of these technologies (such as social media platforms and networks) has led to an increasing commonality in the unfortunate practice of cyberbullying (especially among teenagers). In addition to this understanding of cyberbullying, a legal definition is also helpful. Patchin & Hinduja (2006) give these definitions as found in legal glossaries:

Actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.

Use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person.

Use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.

The major (and most obvious) deviation of cyberbullying from “traditional” bullying is the lack of physical threat. However, this does not mean that cyberbullying should be considered less of an issue. As Thomas Claburn states, “Certain characteristics inherent in online technologies increase the likelihood that they will be exploited for deviant purposes” (2007). In other words, cyber interactions are generally less supervised and controllable than other traditional settings, such as school. This opens potential victims up to greater risk. Some may argue that victims may simply avoid the medium in which the information or defamation is being published. However, as both Claburn and another scholar, Jasbir Puar, point out, avoidance by the victim is not the solution. “Publishing defamatory material about a person the Internet is extremely difficult to prevent and once it is posted…is almost impossible to remove from the Internet,” stated Puar (2011). This makes it clear that cyberbullying ought to be considered on equal footing as other forms of traditional bullying.

Considering these tactics as conducive to cyberbullying will help policymakers in the “prevention” aspect of legislating against cyberbullying. Several researchers have suggested that specific programs be implemented that are aimed at preventing cyberbullying by controlling the tools used. For example, Von Marees & Petermann suggest that these programs be incorporated into the school curriculum itself, and include instruction on how to use the Internet safely and properly (2012, 476). This would include teaching potential victims how to block messages or maintain security on their computers.

The numbers behind the issue are also convincing. A 2004 survey of young students (between grades 4-6) found that 42% of children have been bullied while online, and 35% of kids have been threatened online – one in four or five have had it happen more than once (Finkelhor, Mitchell & Wolak). Even more telling than this in the issue is that more than half of those who have had experienced cyberbullying have not told their parents (or any adult) that it has happened.

Thankfully, many states have taken steps in legislating and enforcing against cyberbullying. At least forty-five states have passed laws against “digital harassment” and still, others are aiming at combating cyberbullying specifically (Olsen, 2008). In 2008, California passed “one of the first laws in the country to deal directly with cyberbullying” (Surdin, 2009). Assembly Bill 86 (AB 86) enables school administrators with the ability to discipline students for bullying – online or offline. The bill “includes acts that constitute sexual harassment, hate violence, or severe or pervasive intentional harassment, threats, or intimidation and that are committed personally or by means of an electronic communications device or system. It provides grounds for school officials to suspend a pupil or recommend a pupil for expulsion for bullying, including bullying by the electronic act” (NCSL, 2010).

In addition to the legal response, several awareness campaigns have seen success in recent years. Publically, the Advertising Council in the United States launched a “new public service advertising campaign” that pointed at educating adolescents about cyberbullying and how to end it (Dallas Morning News, 2008). This project was in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice. Most notably, The Bully Project was created in 2011 with the goal to “spark a national movement to stop bullying that is transforming kids’ lives” and to change “a culture of bullying into one of empathy and action” (Ideas & Discoveries, 2011). This grassroots campaign was in response to the wide-spread film Bully (Alvarez, 2013).

Alternatives:

The choice of alternatives for the issue of cyberbullying is not long: maintain the ‘status quo’ of merely responding to incidents of cyberbullying, continue to encourage the creation and implementation of laws similar to California’s AB 86 to take reactive steps, or take proactive, legislative steps to encourage prevention, awareness, and community involvement. I recommend using the final alternative.

Below are listed the relative advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the status quo (that is, no specific action to take place), encouraging the continued creation and maintenance of reactive laws, and following after a recommendation for further legislative action. The first alternative does not mean that no action will take place, but that there would be no cohesive effort involving social, legal, and scholastic actors. The second alternative takes further steps at the reaction to cyberbullying. Finally, the last (and recommended) alternative is to take a new approach to cyberbully in legislation.

It is important to note that each of these alternatives overlaps – and are not mutually exclusive. This is, however, by design. In order for cyberbullying to be fully addressed, goals must overlap and combine for a cohesive response. It is the last alternative, however, that covers the spectrum of issues and needed responses.

(Alternatives outline omitted for preview. Available via download)

Recommendation:

I recommend a law (whether federal or state is another question altogether) that seeks to address the root of cyberbullying. Many existing laws, such as California’s AB 86 respond to cyberbullying cases without getting to the core of the issue. As stated above, this core is the perception of cyberbullying in the public eye. To counter this perception, I recommend a law that addresses cyberbullying in three ways:

1. Prevention of cyberbullying, especially by adolescents

2. Awareness of the existence and effects of cyberbullying, including funding for campaign initiatives

3. Incentives for community involvement in the issue

A law aimed at these three prongs of the cyberbullying issue would make cyberbullying less attractive to perpetrators, essentially preventing children and adolescent teens from engaging in such actions. While the solution is not perfect, it moves beyond the status quo and mere reactive measures. Creation such a law would be the best alternative for addressing cyberbulling from all directions. Prevention would educate both perpetrators about the effects of cyberbullying and potential victims about safety measures. Awareness would put cyberbullying on the national stage, bringing the issue into the light of public opinion and polity. Finally, the involvement of the community will ensure that cyberbullying is addressed from multiple angles, given that multiple voices will be involved in its resolution.

Implementation Plan:

The implementation of this alternative must be carefully approached. It is important to note here that the goal should be effective legislation that takes specific actions against cyberbullying, rather than merely paying lip service to the importance of the issue. This is why the balanced approach of the three-prong alternative is so important – it makes the leap from “feel-good legislation” to meaningful legislation. As the National School, Safety and Security Service state, “unfunded state mandates and an overemphasis on any one component of school safety will likely have minimal impact on school safety and could potentially upset the comprehensive approach to school safety recommended by most…professionals” (Turley, 2008). This underlines the importance of having public support and available financial backing for the implementation of such a law.

The first step for a policy group to take is to draw a specific plan or drafted legislation. This can be achieved by extant research, surveying professionals and experts, and conducting an in-depth analysis of the school system’s response to existing problems. Using the background information outlined above, in combination with specified research, will provide the group with the resources needed for drafting petitions and legislation.

Besides drawing the plan itself, the major first step in implementing this alternative would be to raise public support for legislative action through a petitioning campaign. If the region or state is to be changed, even a specific legislative response must begin in the grassroots. Doing so would bring public support for the legislation, involving awareness campaigns and community involvement from the start. This is helpful not only for the shaping of the law but for the funding of the law. If finances are to be diverted for specific anti-bullying initiatives and programs, the campaign must have the support of the public. This will help in moving the issue beyond the hype and towards a solution to cyberbullying by providing the public support and financial resources for improving school climate and security in the world of cyber.

Action:

While the implementation plan as outlined above, there are three first steps to be taken before anything else can be undertaken:

1. Analysis of existing laws across the United States

2. Identification of the gaps in needed response

3. Gain the support of existing policy and anti-bullying activist groups

References

Alvarez, Lizette. 20 November 2013. “Girl’s Suicide Points to Rise in Apps Used by Cyberbullies.” The New York Times. Accessed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/us/suicide-of-girl-after-bullying-raises-worries-on-web-sites.html?_r=0

Claburn, Thomas. June 27, 2007. “Cyberbullying Common, More So At Facebook and Myspace.” Information Week.

Dallas Morning News. August 5, 2008. “Boy Scout Handbook Adds Advice for Dealing with Bullies.” Dallas Morning News. Accessed: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/012009dnmetscoutbullies.24d01f1.html

Olsen, Stefanie. June 7, 2008. “A rallying cry against cyberbullying.” CNET News. Accessed: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9962375-7.html

Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K.J., & Wolak, J. 2000. “Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth”. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Alexandria, VA.

Hinduja, S., Patchin, J. W. 2009. Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ideas & Discoveries. 2011. “Cyberthreat: How to protect yourself from online bullying.” Ideas & Discoveries: 76.

NCPC. “Cyberbullying among teens.” The National Crime Prevention Association. Accessed: http://www.ncpc.org/cyberbullying

NCSL. 2010. “Legislation By State.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/cyberbullying.aspx

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S. 2006. “Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: 4(2): 148-169.

Puar, Jasbir. 2011. “Ecologies of Sex, Sensation, and Slow Death”. Periscope.

Surdin, Ashley. January 1, 2009. “States passing laws to combat cyberbullying”. Washington Post. Retrieved January 2, 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/31/AR2008123103067.html

Turley, Jonathan. July 15, 2008. “Bullying’s Day in Court.” USA Today. Accessed: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5378214&page=1

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2010. “What is Cyberbullying”. Accessed: http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/

Von Marees, N., & Petermann, F. (2012). Cyberbullying: An increasing challenge for schools. School Psychology International, 33(5), 476.