cyberbullying – Techdirt (original) (raw)

We Looked At All The Recent Evidence On Mobile Phone Bans In Schools – This Is What We Found

from the looking-at-the-actual-data dept

Mobile phones are currently banned in all Australian state schools and many Catholic and independent schools around the country. This is part of a global trend over more than a decade to restrict phone use in schools.

Australian governments say banning mobile phones will reduce distractions in class, allow students to focus on learning, improve student wellbeing and reduce cyberbullying.

But previous research has shown there is little evidence on whether the bans actually achieve these aims.

Many places that restricted phones in schools before Australia did have now reversed their decisions. For example, several school districts in Canada implemented outright bans then revoked them as they were too hard to maintain. They now allow teachers to make decisions that suit their own classrooms.

A ban was similarly revoked in New York City, partly because bans made it harder for parents to stay in contact with their children.

What does recent research say about phone bans in schools?

Our study

We conducted a “scoping review” of all published and unpublished global evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools.

Our review, which is pending publication, aims to shed light on whether mobile phones in schools impact academic achievement (including paying attention and distraction), students’ mental health and wellbeing, and the incidence of cyberbullying.

A scoping review is done when researchers know there aren’t many studies on a particular topic. This means researchers cast a very inclusive net, to gather as much evidence as possible.

Our team screened 1,317 articles and reports as well as dissertations from masters and PhD students. We identified 22 studies that examined schools before and after phone bans. There was a mix of study types. Some looked at multiple schools and jurisdictions, some looked at a small number of schools, some collected quantitative data, others sought qualitative views.

In a sign of just how little research there is on this topic, 12 of the studies we identified were done by masters and doctoral students. This means they are not peer-reviewed but done by research students under supervision by an academic in the field.

But in a sign of how fresh this evidence is, almost half the studies we identified were published or completed since 2020.

The studies looked at schools in Bermuda, China, the Czech Republic, Ghana, Malawi, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States. None of them looked at schools in Australia.

Academic achievement

Our research found four studies that identified a slight improvement in academic achievement when phones were banned in schools. However, two of these studies found this improvement only applied to disadvantaged or low-achieving students.

Some studies compared schools where there were partial bans against schools with complete bans. This is a problem because it confuses the issue.

But three studies found no differences in academic achievement, whether there were mobile phone bans or not. Two of these studies used very large samples. This masters thesis looked at 30% of all schools in Norway. Another study used a nationwide cohort in Sweden. This means we can be reasonably confident in these results.

Mental health and wellbeing

Two studies in our review, including this doctoral thesis, reported mobile phone bans had positive effects on students’ mental health. However, both studies used teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of students’ wellbeing (the students were not asked themselves).

Two other studies showed no differences in psychological wellbeing following mobile phone bans. However, three studies reported more harm to students’ mental health and wellbeing when they were subjected to phone bans.

The students reported they felt more anxious without being able to use their phone. This was especially evident in one doctoral thesis carried out when students were returning to school after the pandemic, having been very reliant on their devices during lockdown.

So the evidence for banning mobile phones for the mental health and wellbeing of student is inconclusive and based only on anecdotes or perceptions, rather than the recorded incidence of mental illness.

Bullying and cyberbullying

Four studies reported a small reduction in bullying in schools following phone bans, especially among older students. However, the studies did not specify whether or not they were talking about cyberbullying.

Teachers in two other studies, including this doctoral thesis, reported they believed having mobile phones in schools increased cyberbullying.

But two other studies showed the number of incidents of online victimisation and harassment was greater in schools with mobile phone bans compared with those without bans. The study didn’t collect data on whether the online harassment was happening inside or outside school hours.

The authors suggested this might be because students saw the phone bans as punitive, which made the school climate less egalitarian and less positive. Other research has linked a positive school climate with fewer incidents of bullying.

There is no research evidence that students do or don’t use other devices to bully each other if there are phone bans. But it is of course possible for students to use laptops, tablets, smartwatches or library computers to conduct cyberbullying.

Even if phone bans were effective, they would not address the bulk of school bullying. A 2019 Australian study found 99% of students who were cyberbullied were also bullied face-to-face.

What does this tell us?

Overall, our study suggests the evidence for banning mobile phones in schools is weak and inconclusive.

As Australian education academic Neil Selwyn argued in 2021, the impetus for mobile phone bans says more about MPs responding to community concerns rather than research evidence.

Politicians should leave this decision to individual schools, which have direct experience of the pros or cons of a ban in their particular community. For example, a community in remote Queensland could have different needs and priorities from a school in central Brisbane.

Mobile phones are an integral part of our lives. We need to be teaching children about appropriate use of phones, rather than simply banning them. This will help students learn how to use their phones safely and responsibly at school, at home and beyond.

Marilyn Campbell, Professor, School of Early Childhood & Inclusive Education, Queensland University of Technology and Elizabeth J Edwards, Associate Professor in Education, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: cyberbullying, kids, mobile phone bans, mobile phones, schools, social media, studies

Arizona Representative Has The Solution To Cyberbullying: Require Social Media To Wave A Magic Wand And Make It Go Away

from the not-this-again dept

Look, I’m getting exhausted trying to follow every attempt around the country (coming from both Democrats and Republicans) to pass obviously, blatantly, unconstitutional bills to “protect the children on social media,” that make it clear that their authors have no idea (1) how the 1st Amendment works, (2) how social media works, or (3) how children work.

Here’s another to throw on the increasingly long list of ridiculousness. It comes from Arizona State Rep. Seth Blattman, who is still in his first term. The bill is HB 2858 and it is a hodgepodge of ideas, many of which have already been found by courts around the country to be unconstitutional. Like all of these silly bills, this one has a name that makes it sound like pointing out its problems means you hate kids. It’s the “Protecting Children on Social Media Act.” Because who’s against that?

It appears modeled on a federal bill of the same name, which has so many problems we dedicated two separate posts to detailing all of them.

I don’t have time to go through all of the many different requirements of the bill, so we’ll just hit a few of the sillier ones. It effectively requires age verification, because it puts very different rules on how kids and adults can be treated. This has already been found to be unconstitutional over and over and over and over again, and at this point, it’s legislative malpractice for elected officials to keep introducing it.

Second, it puts clear restrictions on speech that kids can access, which has also been found unconstitutional. Kids have First Amendment rights of their own, even if legislators want to ignore that.

It also tries again with a “parental consent” model requiring sites to get consent for kids to use social media. You know, like Ohio’s parental consent bill that was just found to be unconstitutional. Once again, this is the kind of thing that only a completely out of touch elected official introduces. It, incorrectly, assumes a family model where kids have a good relationship with their parents (or a relationship at all). It assumes that an LGBTQ kid can openly talk to their parents about why they need to access a certain online community.

The bill also includes some real whoppers, like imagining that if you just tell social media to filter out “cyberbullying” that will magically help. Seriously:

This is just so disconnected from reality. First off, pretty much every platform already has a massive effort within their trust & safety teams to deal with bullying, but it isn’t done by just waving a magic wand and creating a filter. Bullying takes all forms, and pre-dates social media by a few millennia. If you filter out certain words, kids will use different words. Or they’ll use forms of bullying that you can’t filter out. Just as an example, in a recent conversation I observed about cyberbullying, kids explained how one form of cyberbullying was just posting photos of other friends hanging out together, to make someone feel jealous that they weren’t invited.

How do you filter that?

Bullying is a problem, but thinking that you fix it with a magic mandated “filter” is just disconnected from reality.

Another problem with the bill: it says sites need to prevent those over 18 from messaging those under 18. And if you don’t think through anything, you can understand why this might have sounded like a good idea to someone who thinks the only reason that someone over 18 might talk to someone under 18 is for nefarious purposes or “grooming” or whatever.

But there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone over 18 might want to message those under 18. Most obviously: parents texting their kids. Or, as happens quite frequently these days: grandparents texting their kids. Or teachers texting their students.

But, also, under this law, high school seniors would have this bizarre situation in which on their 18th birthday, they’d no longer be able to message their friends who were still 17. Because, apparently, Blattman thinks kids all turn 18 on the same day?

This isn’t a serious bill. It’s the kind of bill someone proposes when they want to campaign on “I’m trying to protect your kids, so I will propose a very bad bill that won’t protect your kids, but which says it will so I can make these claims.”

But, seriously, can people start electing people who write bills that are based in reality?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, age verification, arizona, cyberbullying, parental consent, protect the children, seth blattman, social media

California Senate Passes Three Awful Bills For The Internet; Will Newsom Sign Them?

from the california-stabs-the-internet dept

Unfortunately, last night, the California Senate passed some horribly dangerous bills that we’ve been warning about the past few weeks — and they’re heading to Governor Newsom’s desk for signing. It seems likely he will sign them, even as that will be a huge, and dangerous mistake. First up was AB 2273 the “Age Appropriate Design Code” that we’ve been calling attention to over the past week. The bill has massive problems, is literally impossible to comply with, was written in part by a UK Baroness with ties to Hollywood, will only serve to benefit privacy lawyers and a giant porn company, and could lead to websites requiring a facial scan for access (and that’s according to the bill’s supporters!). It’s a bad bill.

But no politician wants to hand political opponents the talking point of “and s/he voted against a bill to protect the children online!” And thus… the bill passed 30 to 0. Not a single Senator voted against it.

This is super annoying.

Another bill that passed was AB 587. I wrote about this one a few weeks ago as well. It was pitched as a “transparency” bill, but as Eric Goldman noted, was functionally identical to the Texas and Florida laws that were booted for being unconstitutional. My own complaint was more direct. Under 587, websites now basically have to teach disinfo peddlers how best to game their systems, and can’t do much to deal with them without violating the law.

This one passed 31 to 3.

There was also a third bill, AB 2879, which effectively tries to ban bad people “cyberbullying” online. We only had time to mention that one in passing, because we’re just a small operation here, and there’s only so much we can do — especially when none of the big free speech / open internet organizations seemed willing to speak up against these bills.

It seems likely that Newsom will sign all of these bills — though now would be a good time for California residents and companies to call the governor’s office and tell him how much damage these bills will do to the internet, to free speech, and to privacy.

These bills are fundamentally flawed. They are written by people who do not understand how the internet works at all — and they will backfire. The “protect the kids” bill will encourage dystopian facial scanning or other age verification checks, despite the enormous harm such systems do. It will enable so much harm and make it more difficult for the internet to function. At least for the companies that abide by the bill. Many others will almost certainly ignore it because it’s impossible to comply with.

The “transparency” bill is a complete and utter mess. It totally misunderstands fundamental aspects of how trust and safety works. It misunderstands the dynamic nature of threats and bad actors, and basically requires websites to provide an unchangeable roadmap for how to abuse any website in a manner where the website’s hands are tied behind their back if they want to change their policies.

The cyberbullying bill is based on a fantasy, and will actually make it that much more difficult for websites to deal with cyberbullying.

And, now you can bet that other states — including Texas and Florida — will model their own internet-attacking bills on these California bills as well.

It’s not good.

It’s frustrating and exhausting beyond all belief that California is doing this. And that there have been very, very few voices speaking up about it. It’s that kind of apathy that lets these bills sail through.

Filed Under: ab 2273, ab 2879, ab 587, california, cyberbullying, for the children, free speech, gavin newsom, privacy, transparency

Robyn Openshaw, 'The Green Smoothie Girl,' Threatening SLAPP Suits Over Mediocre Reviews

from the don't-do-this dept

Various health fads come and go. One particular one that I guess has been around for a bit is the idea of drinking “green smoothies.” This was made popular by Robyn Openshaw, who is called “The Green Smoothie Girl” and has written a bunch of books, all around her views on approaches to losing weight and health, including the aforementioned green smoothies, and various “detox” plans. There’s also something about “vibrations,” but that’s about as deep into the weeds as I was going to get on her views on staying healthy.

I have no opinion on whether or not any of that stuff works or is good for you (do your own research!) but it does appear that the Green Smoothie Girl, Robyn Openshaw, is not at all happy about negative reviews. People who merely posted on Facebook saying that Openshaw’s claims were “unproven” among other things, started receiving threatening messages demanding that these mildly negative reviews be taken down or they would face lawsuits:

Is it actually slander/bullying to post a negative review of a company on FB? I got this very long message on FB Messenger from a person who isn't even a lawyer…I have never cyber-bullied anyone, so I am inclined to take no action whatsoever. Any advice gladly taken pic.twitter.com/83fPyLvRaO

— Sarah Jane (@nurse_nomad) December 6, 2019

Someone at least claiming to work for Robyn was contacting people with ridiculously baseless threats. The threats are so ridiculous as to be laughable:

Sarah Jane, my employer is Robyn Openshaw, Influence Brands, and GreenSmoothieGirl.

You have until midnight tonight, to remove your negative reviews on her various companies. We have screenshotted your slander and cyberbullying and will engage our attorneys and PI’s to send you a FORMAL C&D, should you not wish to comply, as well as file a lawsuit against you which will include damages to her….

[….]

… as we work together to gather information and file complaints, as well as court costs, in our state (not yours.)

As soon as your name is in the lawsuit for damages, slander, and cyberbullying with charges in all applicable case law, we will hold you accountable for those charges as lon gas it takes. You can probably infer that this will be very expensive.

Most of that is word salad, with a few nonsense legal terms tossed in for shits and giggles. But, it’s a nice touch to flat out admit in the threat to file a SLAPP suit that you’re doing it because it will “be very expensive.” Good to admit that that’s your intention upfront, right?

I would imagine this will end up in the media as well.

You don’t say…

Should you choose to delete all your false reviews, we will not subpoena Facebook for all your information and pursue legal action against you. We will just watch your actions in case you do any more, and at that point we will take ALL of the evidence to the authorities.

The authorities? I love legal threats that don’t know the difference between civil complaints and criminal charges, but, hey. It all sounds vaguely about the law.

But wait, there’s more:

There are some true classics in here.

I highly recomment you take quick action to remove the negative reviews, as they legally qualify under many laws/statutes as slander and bullying, and the law holds you accountable for the financial and other losses businesses incur due to your actions–even the time we employees spend having to document your actions and pursue you, will be collected in a court judgment against you.

That review must have been pretty bad, right? Nope:

All I said was they make unproven claims. No rude language.

— Sarah Jane (@nurse_nomad) December 6, 2019

Since then First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn has been cataloging more and more insanity around these threats. We’ve heard of some unique interpretations of Section 230 in the past, but this might be the craziest:

That includes an image first of someone asking for info on a commenter be sent to Openshaw so “he can be served legally and peacefully” and then shows Openshaw stating the following, which appears to likely be her mangling how Section 230 works:

Lannette Syck also attorney confirms I am not liable for what I say here. This is my page.

They are the ones out of bounds. They come on my page and the pages of my business.

Um… what?

And, of course, it quickly came out that they were sending these kinds of messages to others who wrote negative reviews as well. And, as we all know by now, you’re not doing vexatious legal threats correctly if you don’t eventually get around to doing the RICO. And I think we can say mission accomplished on that one:

That’s a message, direct from Openshaw’s account (rather than an “employee”) saying:

She wasnt a commenter. She committed felony tortious interference and RICO.

let her know it’s slander and tortious interference when I can prove she’s not a customer or follower and she was told to go attack my page by pharma mafia troll.

Clueless trolls don’t know c&d is a warning.

Should they want to remove the fraud review before they get served.

They can disregard, their choice, and get served.

All the fake reviews posted within 48 hours of supertroll BKM telling others to attack my page, plus tagging her troll friends right here on my page to go post fake reviews.

We have all the screen shots.

Felony convictions are a matter of public record and can keep you from getting a job or a loan.

Felony convictions? For posting a mildly negative review? That’s not how any of this works.

Also, she seems to think that violating Facebook’s terms of service is the same as violating the law. And cyber consultants something something something.

That’s another message from Robyn’s own account:

[Redacted], would you like to take your troll posts down–on your page, and the comment on mine–or would you prefer my cyber security specialist serve you at your work with my attorneys’ C&D and lawsuit for defamation and violating Facebook’s bullying policies, and you have violated both–which are here:

* descriptions of photos that degrade someone’s appearance or character. * targeting someone with threats

Your choice. Let me know by midnight tonight, because I have some legal actions to initiate tomorrow. If there is a cyber bullying lawsuit, we will seek all my legal and cyber consultant fees.

Sounds credible!

And apparently, RICO isn’t enough, because eventually, you need to take it up a notch. To terrorism.

That appeared to be a bit of an “airing of grievances” by Robyn with those who left negative comments, and includes this whopper:

My attorney will subpoena Facebook Monday so I can sue her for damages and engage Facebook to find her actual identity and any other fake profiles where she spreads hate speech and terrorism.

And there’s more. This time, a message from “Drew Millz.”

Well, the c&d is obviously informal, as it said, from a non attorney (who is talking to attorneys as she vets them for who is most qualified to sue the rolls doing damage to her business, harassing, and other cyber crimes).

And when the suits against those doing damage to her business are filed, they will of course all be based on actual law.

Well, phew. Actual law. Like the 1st Amendment? Might want to look that one up before suing over speech.

All of you can discuss at will but if you do damage to Ms Openshaw and her publishers’ properties or slander or harass you will face legal consequences.

Some will be served at home and some at work so be mindful if you are the type of person to harm strangers’ IP and web properties.

Some of you have done it to many people and we are collecting that evidence to make this a larger order and TRO than just Ms Openshaw.

But no one sending the INFORMAL c&d claimed to be an attorney.

The informal c&d stated these options are being considered.

The legal team about to represent Ms Openshaw in these actions feel there is RICO justification for two of the supertrolls.

RICO justification? Informal C&Ds? This is just so much fun, I might have to go drink an orange smoothie to celebrate. Anyway, the informal cease and desist letters then turned into “draft” C&D letters, because that makes no sense at all. Also, they promise to drag the people they’re threatening to Utah to defend this, once again effectively admitting that this is vexatious.

There’s also a separate Twitter account that first claimed Openshaw was already sending subpoenas and also looking for a lawyer (i.e., sending subpoenas before having a lawyer?!?):

Robyn Openshaw, public figure THE #1 health site , is seeking a top attorney that specializes in cyber bullying. She has been very public that she is going to sue a number of the trolls & is already subpoenaing their info and says it will ALL be in public court of law record! thx

And when more knowledgeable people pointed out how silly this claimed, the responses got worse:

She didn?t have to get any of the information subpoenaed. Asking the universe will provide. This is going to be an epic case that will set a precedence and she said these trolls are going to pay. With more than money.

Asking the universe will provide.

If her knowledge of health and wellness is at the same level as her knowledge of the law, well, I’d maybe stay away from green smoothies.

The threats on Facebook have continued — with the latest coming from a brand new profile under the name “Jeff Johnson” claiming that Openshaw doesn’t want to harm anyone’s right to free speech — but somehow calling out her bogus threats is an attack on her free speech. Because, of course:

That one also includes some fun insults about “under employed lawyers” and warnings about more lawsuits.

I get that people not fawning over you may feel bad. And that negative reviews may hurt. But hitting back with bogus legal threats, then doubling down with even more threats that are in no way reflective of the actual law, is no way to go through life.

Filed Under: cyberbullying, defamation, free speech, green smoothie girl, reviews, robyn openshaw, slapp, threats

Maryland's Terrible Cyberbullying Law Gets Worse With The Addition Of Jail Sentences For Inducing Suicide Attempts

from the 'strongest'-laws-are-rarely-the-best-crafted-laws dept

Maryland legislators — pretty much all of them — are congratulating themselves for making it easier to put kids in jail.

A bill signed into law by Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) on Thursday gives Maryland families unparalleled protections against online harassment aimed at their children, a leading lawmaker said, and could serve as a template for national legislation.

Senate Bill 103 and its House companion HB 181 was dubbed Grace’s Law 2.0 by its chief sponsor, Sen. Bobby Zirkin (D-Baltimore County), because it built on a measure passed in 2013 following the suicide death of Howard County teen Grace McComas.

Well, let’s hope it’s not a “template for national legislation.” It’s a bad law, as laws named after dead people often are. No matter how many minors are locked up, it won’t make her death any less of a senseless tragedy.

The law [PDF] won’t just target kids, of course. But it’s built around the death of a child, so it will most often be wielded against children. The alteration of an existing cyberharassment law comes with a possible ten-year jail sentence attached.

This critical alteration is added to a cyberbullying law that’s already filled with vague terms and allows prosecutors to decide what’s harassing or annoying — or in the case of the add-on, what has pushed someone to commit suicide. The original “Grace’s law” already created a hotline of sorts for state government employees to directly pressure Facebook to remove posts deemed to have “no societal value.” This amendment has been added solely to create a lengthier sentence for electronic communications tied to someone’s suicide. The existing vague definitions haven’t been altered, which means there’s a lot of grey area prosecutors can explore.

Although the measure passed the General Assembly unanimously — 45-0 in the Senate and 137-0 in the House — it was opposed by the ACLU of Maryland.

Toni Holness, the group’s public policy director, said in February that the bill fails to adequately define what constitutes a “true threat.”

Holness also was concerned about other words in the bill that had not been defined: encourage, provoke, sexual information, intimidating, tormenting.

“There’s way too much prosecutorial discretion in these terms that are not defined,” she said.

Considering the hefty new ten-year sentence (along with an increase from one to three years in jail for regular cyberbullying) being installed here, this statement — from the mother of child the law is named after — makes zero sense.

“We’re not interested in charging children or putting them in jail or fining them,” Christine McComas said. “What we want to do is change the behavior so the internet is more kind.”

Maybe not Christine personally. But the state certainly is interested in charging children and putting them in jail. If it weren’t interested, the law wouldn’t have been written, much less passed unanimously and put into force. Attaching jail sentences to the legislative equivalent of thoughts and prayers won’t make the internet more kind, but it will ensure more prosecutions of children, if that’s what state legislators really want.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bobby zirkin, cyberbullying, grace mccomas, grace's law, jailing kids, maryland

NY State Legislators Unanimously Pass A Cyberbullying Bill That Can't Be Bothered To Define Cyberbullying [Update]

from the passed-without-an-ounce-of-credibility-or-sincerity dept

Update: Eugene Volokh points out (via email) that there is a definition of cyberbullying on the books in New York state. The bill does not reference it, however. This bill appends Section 12a to Section 12, which is part of the state’s consolidated education law. Section 12 says “no student will be subjected to harassment or bullying by employees or students on school property or at a school function.” There’s still no definition here of bullying or cyberbullying, nor is there anything pointing to the state’s definition of these terms. To find a definition, readers must look to Section 11 (again, not mentioned anywhere in the new bill), which is another part of the state’s education laws. This is how that section defines cyberbullying:

“Harassment” and “bullying” shall mean the creation of a hostile environment by conduct or by threats, intimidation or abuse, including cyberbullying, that (a) has or would have the effect of unreasonably and substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance, opportunities or benefits, or mental, emotional or physical well-being; or (b) reasonably causes or would reasonably be expected to cause a student to fear for his or her physical safety; or (c) reasonably causes or would reasonably be expected to cause physical injury or emotional harm to a student; or (d) occurs off school property and creates or would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment, where it is foreseeable that the conduct, threats, intimidation or abuse might reach school property. Acts of harassment and bullying shall include, but not be limited to, those acts based on a person’s actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. For the purposes of this definition the term “threats, intimidation or abuse” shall include verbal and non-verbal actions.

This definition helps, but it’s still an unconstitutional proposal. What might have been limited to acts on school property or those resulting in disruption is now being spread to cover the act (as defined here) anywhere it takes place. Criminalizing the act takes it a step further than it should be taken, and in doing so, infringes on protected speech. Volokh’s post give several examples of protected speech that would be considered a criminal act if the law goes into effect. Here are just a couple of them:

[3.] A popular local blogger harshly condemns an under-18-year-old accused of crime, calling him a thug or other words that are viewed as “verbal abuse.” The blogger knows that opinion among high schoolers about the accused criminal is sharply divided (perhaps on ethnic, racial, or religious lines), with some people stridently defending him and others condemning him. The article is foreseeably read on school property, as students pull it up on their phones or computers. The article also foreseeably leads some students to again condemning the accused criminal, and others to defend it; foreseeably, a fight breaks out, or threatens to break out, which means the article “foreseeably create[d] a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment.” The blogger is a criminal.

[4.] An under-18-year-old high school student becomes a nationally known activist, for instance for gun control or transgender rights or some such. People repeatedly mock his arguments online, and condemn his as an idiot, which a prosecutor thinks is “verbal abuse” and “would reasonably be expected to cause … emotional harm” to him. The people can be prosecuted, and will be convicted if the jury agrees with the prosecutor.

Tl;dr: I screwed up. It is defined elsewhere in the state’s statutes. Unfortunately, there’s no acknowledgment of that fact in the bill’s wording. It simply assumes everyone knows what cyberbullying is and what is covered under that definition. I can assure you many of those voting for the bill are likely unaware of how much protected speech this bill targets.

New York state legislators are back at it, attempting to tackle cyberbullying with a “new” law. In reality, this would be the legislature’s fifth attempt to enact an anti-cyberbullying law. New York attorney Eric Turkewitz was the first to catch the New York’s Senate’s self-congratulatory tweet. The tweet touted the bill’s unanimous passage (a 56-0 vote). But “widespread support” isn’t synonymous with “well-crafted law.” No state senator wants to appear “soft” on bullying, so the law passes without anyone bothering to ascertain its effectiveness, much less its constitutionality.

For an anti-bullying law to survive a constitutional challenge, it must be exceedingly well-crafted and narrowly-defined. This bill — with 56-0 support — has none of that. From Turkewitz’s post on the bill:

Just one teensy little problem seems to have escaped the drafters, however. This “cyber-bullying” that they wish to make a misdemeanor has a flaw. I’m almost embarrassed to mention it, but here goes.

Cyber-bullying doesn’t seem to have a definition.

It doesn’t. Once you get past the full page of preamble explaining why such a law is needed, you run into this, which defines nothing but who would be protected by the law.

S 12-A. CYBERBULLYING. 1. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS:

A. MINOR SHALL MEAN ANY NATURAL PERSON OR INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. B. PERSON SHALL MEAN ANY NATURAL PERSON OR INDIVIDUAL.

ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY ENGAGES IN A REPEATED COURSE OF CYBERBULLYING OF A MINOR SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BY A PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Up to one year in prison based on a definition apparently to be determined post-arrest by prosecutors or presiding judges. And, apparently, cyberbullying ends once the victim turns 18, so there’s no need to extend this dubious protection to adults.

State lawmakers should know better. First, they should know laws attempting to regulate speech must be particular and explicit in their definitions of the prohibited speech. Second, the justification for regulating speech must clearly and heavily outweigh the negative repercussions of the government’s act of censorship. All this law has is a statement saying schools are powerless to stop cyberbullying that occurs off campus. That’s not nearly enough justification to start handing out misdemeanor charges to mean people.

There have been better-defined bills passed in the state of New York. The county of Albany actually took the trouble to define the terms central to the law.

1. “any act of communicating … by mechanical or electronic means,”

2. “including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network,”

– “disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs;”

– “disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information,”

– “or sending hate mail,”

3. ”with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose,”

4. “with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.”

This definition is 73 words longer than the state senate’s definition of “cyberbullying” and it still couldn’t beat a Constitutional challenge. The state’s highest court shut down enforcement of the law, noting that its definitions would “criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying.”

On its fifth attempt to push through anti-cyberbullying legislation, the state senate can’t even be bothered to craft a definition narrow enough to be rejected by the state’s courts, much less one that would survive even the most cursory challenge.

A bill like this — one that’s seen four previous attempts — serves one purpose. And it’s got nothing to with the children we’re always supposed to be thinking about. Here’s Scott Greenfield’s take:

[T]his law is just a cynical attempt to game the emotions of the electorate, as it has absolutely no chance of passing constitutional muster. The senators didn’t even give it a try, and as much as they may not be the sharpest knives in the legislature, even they know that you can’t criminalize cyberbullying by defining it as cyberbullying.

The proposed law is electioneering dressed up to look like empathethic legislation. It’s multiple campaign efforts being funded by taxpayers who not only pay the salaries of legislators who can’t be bothered to do their job properly, but will also be on the hook for legal fees if the bill becomes law and has to be defended in court. When one of these partners in unanimous useless ask for donations during the next election run, point to bullshit like this and tell them you gave at the office.

Filed Under: cyberbullying, definitions, new york

Utah Legislators Want To Outlaw Posting Of People's Pictures And Names With The 'Intent To Harass'

from the if-intent-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder dept

Like many bad laws, I’m sure this bill lying on the Utah governor’s desk has its heart in the right place. But, like many bad laws, its head is completely up its ass. Eugene Volokh reports there’s Yet Another Cyberbullying Bill on the threshold of passage. Like many that have come before it, it’s full of constitutional issues and easily-abusable language.

Here’s Utah SB118, which passed both houses of the legislature unanimously and is awaiting the governor’s signature:

A person is guilty of electronic communication harassment and subject to prosecution in the jurisdiction where the communication originated or was received if with intent to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, frighten, or disrupt the electronic communications of another, the person: …

(e) electronically publishes, posts, or otherwise discloses personal identifying information of another person, in a public online site or forum, without that person’s permission.

This sounds like it’s meant to deter doxing. But that’s only if you don’t read the section detailing “personal identifying information,” which includes such innocuous items as “names” or “photos.” In between everything else no one should be posting online without that person’s permission (Social Security number, driver’s license number, “electronic identification number,” etc.) are bits of “personal information” that could criminalize a great number of social media posts.

So if someone posts something in Utah that is intended to insult a politician or engages in “excessive and unfounded criticism, humiliation, and denigration” of the politician, that would be a crime — it would be “electronically … post[ing]” “personal identifying information” (the target’s name) without his permission and with the intent to “abuse” (or perhaps “harass,” especially if one does it several times). After all, “personal identifying information” may include a person’s name.

Likewise if someone sharply condemns some government official, indicating the place where the official works (e.g., “Judge X in Courthouse Y is biased and incompetent”). Likewise if someone illustrates an article harshly critical of some official, businessperson, celebrity or anyone else with the person’s photograph.

To their credit, legislators at least trimmed back a bit of the broad language before passage, keeping it from criminalizing posts that merely “annoyed” or “offended” complainants. But what’s left in it still carries huge potential for abuse. And it will be abused if allowed to pass. It won’t protect the hundreds of people who’ve been targeted, harassed, and doxed, but it will give the powerful yet another tool to deploy to shut down critics. It won’t be normal citizens availing themselves of this law first. It will be politicians, government officials, law enforcement officers — basically anyone with more power than skin thickness.

Hopefully, it will be vetoed. But it received support from both sides of Utah’s legislature, and Utah’s government has been known to humor laughable/harmful legislation with alarming frequency. Should it receive the governor’s signature, it will swiftly find itself on the receiving end of a temporary restraining order while the state’s court determines its constitutionality. As written, it’s unlikely to survive this scrutiny.

Filed Under: cyberbullying, free speech, harassment, utah

Cyberbullying Bill Would Grant Power To Strip Online Anonymity Before Legal Proceedings Begin

from the chilling-students'-speech...-for-the-children dept

The Texas legislature’s proposed cyberbullying bill is gathering more opposition. As we covered here last month, the “for the children” bill was meeting resistance from groups actually concerned about the welfare of the state’s children.

According to the Texas branch of the National Association of Social Workers, the bill would put more students in harm’s way by trimming back counseling and other resources in favor of dumping the problem in the lap of law enforcement. Not only that, but the bill would expand the jurisdiction of school disciplinary procedures to cover actions taken by students off-campus.

The bill has additional problems that need to be addressed before it’s passed, as the EFF points out. One of the more dangerous aspects of the proposed legislation is its presumptive stripping of anonymity. Rather than let a court decide whether the party bringing charges has earned the right to uncover the identity of an online commenter, the law hands that power to the aggrieved person before any legal proceedings have commenced.

The bill authorizes subpoenas to investigate potential legal claims arising from any undefined “injury” to a minor before a lawsuit is ever filed. This new process would threaten the First Amendment right to communicate anonymously on the Internet. This right is especially important for people who belong to unpopular groups or who express unpopular messages, who might otherwise stay silent rather than risk retaliation.

In the hypothetical above, suppose the second student anonymously blogged about the classroom comments of the first student, and concluded, “only a jerk would say this in class.” The first student might try to use the bill’s pre-suit subpoena process to unmask the anonymous blogger, based on the pretext of a highly dubious defamation claim. The risk of unmasking would silence many anonymous speakers.

Courts have allowed these efforts to proceed, but this has usually happened after the injured party has made its case for unmasking. This is the “for the children” aspect of the proposal getting in its own way. By presuming the normal legalities of pursuing the identity of anonymous speakers don’t apply when the victim is a minor, the law’s unintended consequences would harm a greater number of minors who would either be unmasked prematurely or discouraged from participating in online speech.

The EFF has sent a letter [PDF] to the state’s legislature opposing the bill as written. It points out other flaws in the bill’s language that would either chill speech or severely damage the future of minors caught up in its broad language. If the bill passes unaltered, it’s highly unlikely it would survive a constitutional challenge. Too much is left to the discretion of administrators and law enforcement officers employed by schools. The bill says vague things about “rights,” but gives these entities the power to decide whose rights are more equal than others.

The Texas bill would expand the power of school officials to discipline youths for “cyberbullying.” The bill’s vague and overbroad definition of that term would include a single email from one student to another that “infringes on the rights of the victim at school.” Those “rights” are not defined.

School officials might use this new power to silence unpopular speech by the very students that some legislators may wish to protect. Suppose that in a current events class, one student said they oppose gay marriage or Black Lives Matter protesters. Suppose further that in response, the leader of that school’s Gay-Straight Alliance or NAACP chapter sent the first student a critical email that concluded, “I wish you would keep your opinion to yourself.” School officials might determine that the second student’s email infringed on the first student’s right to speak in class, and thus impose discipline for sending the email.

Those who support this sort of legislation like to believe no one involved in enforcing the law would interpret the language in such a ridiculous fashion. But as we’ve seen time and time again, far too many school administrators are capable of interpreting policies and laws in the most unreasonable way possible.

Filed Under: anonymity, cyberbullying, first amendment, free speech, offensive, texas

'For The Children' Cyberbullying Law Running Into Opposition From Groups Actually Concerned About Children

from the making-it-all-so-much-worse dept

A Texas cyberbullying law is running into unexpected opposition. The law [PDF], which would criminalize any “electronic harassment or bullying” of anyone under the age of 18, is intended to give schools more resources to deal with cyberbullying. Of course, the law would also extend schools’ reach beyond the confines of the campus, allowing them to take control of off-campus behavior.

It’s one thing if this was limited to disciplinary action by the school. It still would be an extension of government power, but at least the damage done would be limited to in-school punishments. (That’s still a significant amount of damage, considering school disciplinary actions cover things like extended suspensions and expelling students — neither of which do much to alter troubled students’ futures in any positive way.)

Turning this into a criminal act means schools will become even more instrumental in routing students into juvenile detention centers and local jails. This is what has advocates for the health and safety of children concerned.

Will Francis, the government relations director for Texas’ National Association of Social Workers, doesn’t necessarily think schools should be working so closely with the police. Instead, he said, the bill should focus on improving mental health resources in schools to address bullying before it becomes criminal.

“My concern is that we’ll just be sticking more kids with felonies,” said Francis, who says he’s been advising Menendez on the bill’s focus. “I worry we’ll see more schools in poorer, non-white areas using hard and fast punitive criminal justice as a solution.”

As schools have come to rely more and more on SROs (Student/School Resource Officers), the tendency has been to hand over almost every disciplinary matter to campus law enforcement officers. Routine student misconduct is being addressed with arrests, deployments of force, and prosecutors bringing criminal charges against students for behavior that previously would have resulted in detention, suspension, or a long conversation between administrators and the student’s parents.

Right now, Texas schools are employing twice as many police officers as counselors, according to numbers obtained by the San Antonio Current. The disciplinary playing field is already slanted towards law enforcement. Turning bullying into criminal activity makes this ratio more harmful. If the state has a desire to produce better students, this law isn’t going to help it achieve its goal. If it’s more interested in creating a new (and profitable) set of criminals, this expansion of power will definitely help that dream come true.

It’s not just the lack of resources for mental health issues that’s a problem. It’s also the overreach itself. As the EFF points out, giving schools jurisdiction over students’ off-campus activities infringes on their Constitutional rights.

“We believe — and most courts agree — that schools are very limited when it comes to punishing off-campus student speech,” [EFF attorney David] Greene said. Student speech is still protected by free speech laws, regardless of how cruel and unusual it is — especially when they’re off-campus.

[…]

“There’s no rule in the First Amendment for speech that causes harm for a minor,” he said. “If they want to pass these protections, it will have to fit within current laws.”

While there is definitely much to be done to address student bullying — and there’s no denying this has become easier and more prevalent with the rise of multiple social media platforms — the solutions lie in better resources for bullied students and those who engage in bullying. While the outcome of sustained bullying sometimes results in truly horrific tragedies (as is the case here), criminalizing this behavior will only result in a greater number of destroyed futures.

The law — which is still in its proposal stage — promises to do both: criminalize off-campus behavior and bring in more resources to help schools deal with bullying. But it gives school resource officers subpoena power to unmask anonymous social media users and, due to the criminalization of the act, encourages schools to rely more on law enforcement and less on counseling or diversion programs for perpetrators that may allow them to turn themselves around and contribute positively in their new environments.

Filed Under: cyberbullying, for the children, texas

UK's Health Secretary Has The Solution To Cyberbullying & Sexting: Nerds Should Nerd Harder

from the how-are-these-people-in-power? dept

It appears that the “nerd harder” disease has spread across the Atlantic, and none other than the UK’s Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has caught it. In discussing the (frequently overhyped, but still real) issues of cyberbullying and sexting, Hunt has decided that it’s no problem at all, because the nerds can put their minds to it and magically block it:

?I think social media companies need to step up to the plate and show us how they can be the solution to the issue of mental ill health amongst teenagers, and not the cause of the problem,? he said. ?There is a lot of evidence that the technology industry, if they put their mind to it, can do really smart things.

?For example, I just ask myself the simple question as to why it is that you can?t prevent the texting of sexually explicit images by people under the age of 18, if that?s a lock that parents choose to put on a mobile phone contract. Because there is technology that can identify sexually explicit pictures and prevent it being transmitted.

?I ask myself why we can?t identify cyberbullying when it happens on social media platforms by word pattern recognition, and then prevent it happening. I think there are a lot of things where social media companies could put options in their software that could reduce the risks associated with social media, and I do think that is something which they should actively pursue in a way that hasn?t happened to date.?

And I ask myself, how the hell do modern countries allow people so clueless and ignorant into positions of power? How can it possibly be that someone with this much power and authority can’t understand that context matters and that calling for outright censorship without context would be a disaster? It’s the very epitome of the “nerd harder, nerds” plan that comes up so often. “If they put their minds to it, they can do really smart things.”

It feels like all of these powerful people have internalized the flipside of the famed Arthur C. Clarke quote about how “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” and interpreted it to mean “tech can do magical things.” But as cryptographer Matt Blaze famously noted, ignorant officials saying “surely if we can put a man on the moon we can do this” is like saying “surely if we can put a man on the moon, we can put a man on the sun.” Some things are not doable, no matter how many nerds you throw at it.

You’d think that people in charge of, say, the healthcare of a nation, might at least recognize when they’re too ignorant to understand the difference between the possible but difficult, and the impossible. Apparently not.

Filed Under: censorship, cyberbullying, jeremy hunt, nerd harder, sexting, uk