Cyberbullying In The News

I came across a headline while surfing through Yahoo News, which led me to another site called Wired.com, where there were some interesting stories on Cyberbullying. This led me through a maze of links to other stories and blogs on the subject. In the course of this journey, I managed to pick up on some interesting tidbits of information and opinion.
Missouri now has a law related to the issue, and though it is being criticized as "too vague," it seems to be a first step toward defining harassment using certain forms of technology (computers/internet and cell phones) as a separate form of stalking and harassment which can be (and is now being) prosecuted independently of existing anti-stalking and anti-harassment laws.
Reading the articles, the blogs, and the debate in comments from other readers of the articles and blogs, I saw a few interesting points of view. There seem to be a set of specific camps regarding Cyberbullying and legislation.

The first camp, whom I will call The Wimpodites, advocate legislation which would allow prosecution of anyone whose electronic communications are in any way considered by the recipient to be unwanted or intolerable. Basically, they want to make it illegal not only to be rude, but to be perceived as being rude even if rudeness was not intended. This would mean anything you say really can and probably will be held against you. In Gather terms, the Wimpodites would choose to prosecute someone who, for instance, left a comment under someone's article respectfully disagreeing with said article's content even if the manner of disagreement was not abusive, threatening, or slanderous, as long as the article's writer claimed to be upset with the comment's content. I will admit that I use the name Wimpodites because I see this as a wimpy response to the problem... you can't legislate manners.

The second (and biggest) camp, whom I will call The Vigilantes, advocate narrower legislation which would only allow for prosecution of those whose electronic communications actually are abusive, threatening, or slanderous. However, not everyone in this camp has the same definition of what fits those criteria. Some feel that the definition of abuse should be limited to areas which are currently considered abusive under existing harassment and stalking laws.  Others would broaden the definition of abuse to include any deliberate insulting of one's "victim" if said insulting was repeated frequently, even if the insults are not harsh. (An example would be referring to someone as an idiot, calling a person ugly, etc. in multiple comment posts or in every electronic communication sent to that person.) So, I see some Vigilantes as being closer to Wimpodites, while others are a little more conservative in their opinions on the matter. I think the most conservative Vigilantes have the best idea for legislation, if such a step is necessary. The two acceptable ideas I have seen are to model anti-Cyberbullying legislation after existing anti-stalking/anti-harassment laws and existing libel/slander laws, or (and I like this one better if there has to be a new law) to place into law a statement that ties electronic stalking, harassment, and slander in with existing law by stating that behavior which typically is prosecuted under these laws when perpetrated in the absense of electronic communications would still be in violation if the method used involved electronic communication. For example, behavior which could get an individual convicted of phone harassment should still be prosecutable if committed using text messaging rather than vocal calls. Statements which fall under Libel or Slander laws would still be considered Libelous or Slanderous if made in an email, posted on a blog, or put into a news article for an eZine. Behavior which constitutes stalking (following someone around, spying, etc) would still constitute stalking if the behavior involved electronic spying or invading/haunting all of the victim's online activities.
This would have less impact on a site like Gather, but would still have some effect. It is possible that Slander lawsuits could be filed based on opinions stated either in members' blogs or in the comments left under them if those comments were found to satisfy the legal definition of one of those concepts. Also, it is possible that habitually abusive commenters, especially those whose habit is to abuse as specific person and/or solicit abuse of that person from others, could be prosecuted for harassment. Members who "follow" their victims to other sites for the purpose of further harassing them with abusive electronic communications might be prosecuted for stalking. However, it takes a lot before there is legal intervention in stalking and harassment cases, so only members who are truely abusive on a repeated and measurable scale, and those who are threatening, would be likely to get hit with any consequences for their actions.

The third camp, whom I will call the Been Done-ers, argue that Cyberbullying behavior is all ready prosecutable under existing anti-stalking and harassment, libel and slander laws, so no new legislation is necessary.

I tend to be somewhat in between these last two camps. I think that most Cyberbullying can be handled under existing legislation. There might need to be some minor tweaking of the law (minimal new legislation if any) to clarify definitions of electronic communication behaviors which would fit into the categories of stalking or harassment, but Libel and Slander laws should pretty much cover statements made using electronic communication the same way they cover statements made on television, radio, and in public.

The last camp, whom I will call the Suck-It-Ups (as in, suck it up and drive on), are against any prosecution taking place over behavior related to electronic communication. This camp's arguments range from claims that the Free Speech amendment covers abusive speech toward any individual (this, in turn, is an argument against parts of existing harassment laws) to statements that people are being oversensitive and should just "get over it" when someone is abusive online or using text messages. I think this approach is a bit too narrow-minded in its consideration of the issue, with the Suck-It-Ups' opinions based on the idea of communications which do not force any conflict upon the recipient (should I put up with/ignore this individual and his/her 20 best friends, or should I leave the social site I was so greatly enjoying until they began their anti-me campaign?) I think that it is also likely that a lot of the Suck-It-Up attitude I've seen in some of the blogs and comments might be in response to the Wimpodite camp, and some might be coming from Cyberbullies who don't want to feel guilty over their abuse of others.

I do believe that stalking, harassment, libel, and slander should all be taken seriously regardless of the methods used to commit them. I hope that our society can exercise some common sense in the course of dealing with these issues in the electronic world, and will be able to find a balance between public safety and personal freedom.

Here links to some of the articles I found:

Cyberbullying Suicide Stokes the Internet Fury Machine

Blog Readers Out Anonymous Adults That Newspaper Refused to Identify

Prosecuters Charge 7 People Under New Cyberbullying Law

Man Receives Compensation for Cyberbullying

The rise of cyberbullying

States Push for Cyberbully Controls

Cyberbullying by Adolescents, a Preliminary Assessment