Endi starter Packet

Cyberbullying increasing

A study of more than 16,000 Boston-area high school students suggests cyberbullying is on the rise, most sharply with girls as victims and abetted by the prevalence of smartphones among teenagers. The percentage of the students who said they experienced cyberbullying jumped from 14.6 percent to 21.2 percent over a six-year period ending in 2012, according to the study by the nonprofit Education Development Center. The study used self-reported health survey data from 17 unidentified schools west of Boston. The percentage of girls reporting incidents involving bullying or harassment on forums such as websites and social networks shot up 10 percent, while incidents targeting boys increased 3 percent, according to the study. At the same time, reports of in-person bullying decreased by 3 percent over the period.

Cyber Bullying Scope

Affects all students

Bullying and cyberbullying is becoming a major issue that has gotten increased attention over the last few years, as more and more teens are facing the issue. The results have been devastating. With teen suicide on1 the rise, acts of violence increasing, and more victims being identified, it has affected not only their personal lives, but their education as well. According to the 2011 survey results from the Center for Disease Control (CDC): More than 15,000 students did not go to school because they felt unsafe. Almost 15,000 students carried weapons to school. Over 7% were threatened or injured with a weapons on school grounds. At least 20% reported being bullied on school grounds. Over 16% were victims of some type of cyberbullying. With statistics like these, and the numbers raising, the results are impacting many student's education. Children who are bullied or cyberbullied often suffer from symptoms such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, and unhappiness. They may have trouble sleeping, focusing, or making decisions. Their self-esteem may seem low, or they may isolate themselves. All of these factors are not just impacting their home life. In school, they may drop out of extracurricular activities, they may not speak up in class, they may not ask questions due to fear, they may even isolate themselves at school, which can cause the issue to worsen. Their performance in school also may drop, with many showing a decrease in grades. They may even resist going to school, either by staying home, or leaving school grounds after arrival. Many don't know how to deal with the issue

Search Threshold is Low

Clear disruptions in school mean you can search more

Naomi Harlin Goodno, 11-23-2011, Wake Forest Law Review, "How Public Schools Can Constitutionally Halt Cyberbullying: A Model Cyberbullying Policy that Considers First Amendment, Due Process, and Fourth Amendment Challenges," http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2011/11/how-public-schools-can-constitutionally-halt-cyberbullying-a-model-cyberbullying-policy-that-considers-first-amendment-due-process-and-fourth-amendment-challenges/ // ENDI-JM

Schools, therefore, should incorporate the language of the Tinker two-part standard into their cyberbullying policy.[118]  There is, however, some ambiguity in its application.  Courts have unevenly applied the first Tinker standard (that schools can regulate student speech that causes “material disruption”).[119] Courts tend to consider speech as having materially disrupted school activities if administrators are forced to interrupt their regular duties to deal with the disruption.[120] The disruption must be a real disturbance and something more than a “buzz” about the speech.[121] However, when the speech is violent, threatening, or sexually explicit, courts have often found that there was a material disruption.[122] Moreover, courts have also found that schools may discipline students for speech where “a forecast of substantial and material disruption was reasonable.”[123] Notably, Tinker is different than most cyberbullying cases because Tinker involved political speech. Arguably, then, the threshold for establishing a “material disruption” may be lower for purely hurtful speech.[124] As one scholar noted, “cyberbullying incidents that occur at school—or that originate off-campus but ultimately result in a substantial disruption of the learning environment—are well within the school’s legal authority to intervene.”[125]

Reasonable Suspicion Solves

This legal authority is reasonable suspicion.

Lou Ann S. Cyrus and Michael Dunham, “LEGAL MATTERS: COMBATING CYBERBULLYING”, Communicator, March 2015, Volume 38, Issue 7, http://www.naesp.org/communicator-march-2015/legal-matters-combating-cyberbullying // ENDI-JM

Although the First Amendment may prevent schools from censoring student speech, and [but] the Fourth Amendment may prevent schools from performing suspicionless searches, this does not mean that schools are powerless to combat cyberbullying. In addition to education, schools should emphasize to its students that cyberbullying will be taken seriously. Student speech that substantially interferes with the operation of school can be limited. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment would allow for searches of a student’s belongings if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. Currently, an overwhelming majority of states have laws against anti-bullying. Thus, administrators and teachers are within their rights to identify acts of cyberbullying and punish the responsible students. Given the uncertain nature of the law in this area, it is important that schools combat cyberbullying by educating all involved. The best way to police cyberbullying is to promote a culture that condemns it.

Recent court cases strengthen reasonable suspicion

Michael Dunham, Communicator, January 2015, “Policing Internet Harassment: How Schools Can Combat Cyberbullying”, http://shumanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cyberbullying.pdf // ENDI-JM

The Fourth Amendment operates to protect the general public from government searches that are not based on individualized suspicion. However, a much lower standard has traditionally been applied in a school setting. In New Jersey v. T.L.O.4 , the Supreme Court determined that a school administrator may perform an in-school search of a student’s belongings absent probable cause. T.L.O. was extended in 2002 when the Court held in Vernonia Board of Education v. Earls5 that a school district could perform random suspicionless drug testing on students in all competitive extracurricular activities. It is apparent that the Supreme Court's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment decisions strengthen a school’s authority to discipline student expression. The difference, however, between the cases cited above and cyberbullying is the fact that cyberbullying does not have to occur on school grounds. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if the Supreme Court is willing to extend the flexible constitutional standards applicable in school to activities that occur off school grounds. Given the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court, states and lower federal courts have been unable to craft a uniform response. Although state legislatures aim at deterrence and prevention of cyberbullying, many of these laws contain potentially unconstitutional provisions.

Avoids constitutional violations

Benjamin Nowak, 3-26-2014, “Students’ First and Fourth Amendment Rights in the Digital Age: An Analysis of Case Law”, Virginia Tech, https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/47729/Nowak_BA_T_2014.pdf?sequence=1 // ENDI-JM

Students possess reasonable expectations of privacy and, therefore, Fourth Amendment protections in their personal mobile devices and password-protected private Web 2.0 communications. T.L.O governs searches of students’ personal mobile devices and the courts are leaning towards a more narrow fact-based approach in their analyses. Substantive suspicion at the outset and carefully tailored searches will keep school officials from violating students’ Fourth Amendment protections. Vernonia appears to govern cases involving searches of students’ Web 2.0 applications. The courts have limited expectations of privacy to only those Web 2.0 communications that are private, password-protected, and in a student’s exclusive possession. To avoid violating constitutional protections in these types of searches, school officials should carefully weigh the intrusiveness of the search with their interest in “maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds” or “deal[ing] with breaches of public order” (T.L.O., 1985, p.339). Web 2.0 postings or communications that are viewable by “friends,” “followers,” or the general public are not protected by the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, open to searches by school officials. Recommendations – Search and Seizure Based on the limited but growing body of law regarding the search and seizure of students’ personal mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications, it appears as though the T.L.O. and Vernonia standards, when applied narrowly and with fidelity, allow school officials enough flexibility to investigate disputes, accusations, and reasonable suspicions without violating students’ constitutional rights. One recommendation, primarily for parents and students, has emerged from the research. As mentioned previously, students seem to have a false sense of security regarding what they say and do in cyberspace. Parents and students would be wise to educate themselves in the expectations of privacy regarding students’ mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications. The following guidelines will be of assistance:  Students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to their personal mobile devices and, therefore, are protected by the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The probable cause standard and the warrant requirement do not apply to searches within the school setting. So long as reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing exists, school officials do not need student or parent consent to search a personal mobile device.  Similar to a private letter or email, students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their password-protected private Web 2.0 correspondence (i.e. private Facebook messages that are not viewable by “friends” or the general public).  Students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public Web 2.0 postings (i.e. tweets or Facebook wall postings that are viewable by “friends”, “followers”, or the general public).  When students tweet or post on Facebook, they take the risk that their “friends” or “followers” will share that information with school officials. Furthermore, school officials do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they access and search a student’s Facebook postings or tweets through a cooperating witness or third party. In closing, recent case law reveals that the application of longstanding First and Fourth Amendment precedent to student cyberspeech and search and seizure in the digital age has become more consistent over time and has allowed for a workable set of legal guidelines to take shape. For First Amendment issues, Tinker’s material and substantial disruption standard governs. However, two areas remain somewhat unclear. As mentioned previously, the criteria for determining when a disruption rises to the level of material and substantial has not been well defined, which presents a challenge for school officials when responding to actual disruptions or attempting to reasonably forecast a disruption. In addition, the scope of school official’s authority to address student-on-student cyberspeech that is harassing or bullying in nature appears to hinge on the response of the targeted student. This is problematic and begs the question of whether school officials must wait for a potentially serious response before acting. For Fourth Amendment issues, the reasonableness standard set by T.L.O. and Vernonia govern, and when applied narrowly and with fidelity, allow school officials enough flexibility to maintain a safe and secure learning environment without violating students’ constitutional rights.

Limited Rights solve

Shaheen Shariff, McGill University, Canada and Dianne L. Hoff, University of Maine, Orono, USA, “Cyber bullying: Clarifying Legal Boundaries for School Supervision in Cyberspace,” International Journal of Cyber Criminology Vol 1 Issue 1 January 2007, http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/shaheenhoff.pdf // ENDI-JM

Similarly in the United States, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The legal cases involving schools have generally involved searches of lockers and backpacks, but recently the principles of those cases are being applied to searches of computers. Courts have held that schools need only “reasonable suspicion” to search, but caution, “A student’s freedom from unreasonable search and seizure must be balanced against the school official’s need to maintain order and discipline and to protect the health and welfare of all the students” (Alexander & Alexander, 2005). Schools may search school-owned property, such as lockers for routine maintenance or when they have reasonable suspicion that a student is harboring something illegal. In People v. Overton (1967), the courts noted that schools can issue policies regarding what may be stored in school lockers. Correspondingly, educators are entitled to conduct spot checks or involuntary searches of lockers to ensure that students comply with these regulations. In fact, the courts regard the inspection of student lockers not only as a right but also as a duty of schools when it is believed that a student is using school property to harbor illegal materials. In terms of technology it could be argued that, similar to lockers, emails are owned by the school because they are transmitted using school property. Therefore, if a student is suspected of sending harassing comments via email or has found such comments while browsing on school computers, the school should consider it their responsibility to monitor and discipline this activity. This point might be further justified by cases such as Garrity v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (D. Mass. May 7, 2002), where it was found that employers have a right to inspect employee email accounts in cases where employees have been warned their messages are accessible to the organization. With regard to school searches, we can also consider cases such as New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985). In this ruling it was found that although students have a legitimate expectation of privacy within the school setting, schools also have a right to search student property if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the student is violating either the law or the regulations of a school. Since the landmark T.L.O. case, courts have given schools even more latitude in conducting searches. In Veronia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), for example, the constitutionality of conducting random drug testing among student athletes was upheld. This was expanded again in Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002), where Justice Thomas said that students in any extra-curricular activity “implicitly have a lower expectation of privacy.” Again, it would seem reasonable for schools to apply this rationale to technology, since students often use school-owned computers for purposes beyond the academic curriculum. If students are informed in advance that school equipment may be routinely searched (thus reducing their expectation of privacy), schools are likely to be upheld in random searches of their networks and school-owned equipment for purposes such as routine maintenance or when they have genuine concern for students’ safety. Individual searches of computers or a specific student’s internet use may be carried out if school administrators have reasonable suspicion that a student has acted in violation of district policy or has committed a criminal act.

Cyber Bullying Impacts

Cyber bullying causes depression and other forms of mental harm.

Charisse Nixon, “Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health.” National Institute of Health. 2014. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126576/ // ENDI-DY

Past work has revealed a significant relationship between one’s involvement in cyberbullying and affective disorders. For example, results indicate that there is a significant relationship between cybervictimization and depression among adolescents,20,38–43 and among college students.44 Specifically, results showed that higher levels of cyberbullying victimization were related to higher levels of depressive affect. Raskauskas and Stoltz45 asked adolescents open-ended questions about the negative effects of cyberbullying. Notably, 93% of cybervictims reported negative effects, with the majority of victims reporting feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and powerlessness. Perren et al39 further investigated the relationship between depression and cybervictimization among Swiss and Australian adolescents by controlling for traditional forms of victimization. Their results demonstrated that cybervictimization explained a significant amount of the variance in adolescent’s depressive symptomology, even when controlling for traditional forms of victimization.

Cyber bullying increases the probability of suicide.

Charisse Nixon, “Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health.” National Institute of Health. 2014. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126576/ // ENDI-DY

“Several researchers have examined the association between involvement with cyberbullying and adolescent suicidal behavior.34,38,44,55,59 This relationship has been explored among middle school, high school, and college students. For example, Hinduja and Patchin59 surveyed American middle school students and examined the relationship between involvement in cyberbullying (either as a victim or perpetrator) and suicidality. The results revealed that both targets and perpetrators of cyberbullying were more likely to think about suicide, as well as attempt suicide, when compared to their peers who were not involved with cyberbullying. This relationship between cyberbullying and suicidality was stronger for targets, as compared to perpetrators of cyberbullying. Specifically, targets of cyberbullying were almost twice as likely to have attempted suicide (1.9 times), whereas perpetrators were 1.5 times more likely compared to their uninvolved peers.59 Klomek et al38 looked at the relationship between cybervictimization, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicidal attempts among American high school students. Their study results showed that cyberbullying victimization was related to increased depressive affect and suicidal behavior. Similarly, using an even larger high school sample, Schneider et al55also found a positive relationship between cybervictimization and suicidal behavior. This relationship has recently been documented among college students as well.”

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 356.46 Kb.

Share with your friends: