by Larry Magid
This post first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News

Michele Ybarra

A lot has been written about cyberbullying and I’ve seen some articles claiming that cyberbullying is more prevalent and more severe than in-person bullying. Some even refer to it as an “epidemic.”

But, in a presentation at the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) conference in Washington last week, a leading researcher on youth risk reported that the popular belief is actually a misconception. Compared to that bullying that takes place at school and other in-person venues, online bullying is both less prevalent and less distressing.

Listen to Larry’s CBS News Tech Talk segment with Michele Ybarra

Michele Ybarra, president of the Center for Innovative Public Health, says 17 percent of youth have reported online bullying compared to 39 percent who have experienced it “in person.” Ten percent have been bullied by phone, according to Ybarra, while 14 percent have experienced bullying via text messaging.

And despite the concerns that cyberbullying can follow kids home and haunt them via their phones and on their computers, Ybarra’s research found that kids who were bullied in school were more than twice as likely (38 percent vs. 15 percent) to report that they were very or extremely upset about the incident.

Ybarra’s presentation illustrated just how prevalent technology is among teens. For 12-17 year-olds, 95 percent are online, 77 percent have a cell phone, 23 percent have a smartphone, 63 percent text daily and 76 percent use social media. Only 6 percent of teens use email on a daily basis.

She also dispelled the myth that cyberbullying is getting worse. Between 2008 and 2010, bullying rates among 13 to 17 years were mostly flat, according to a study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.

Bullying rate discrepancies between studies can sometimes be explained by how they define bullying. The Olweaus’ Bullying Prevention Program defines bullying as “aggressive behavior that is intentional and that involves an imbalance of power. Most often, it is repeated over time,” but some researchers define it differently

In a 2011 paper entitled “The Internet, Youth Safety and the Problem of ‘Juvenoia,’” David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center, observed that during the years when young people’s use of the Internet has mushroomed, young people have actually experienced fewer serious traumas, not more, as is commonly assumed.

“In the U.S. there has been a remarkable improvement in social problem and risk indicators for young people,” he wrote.

Sexual abuse of children decreased by 61 percent between 1992 and 2009, he said, while teenage pregnancies went down by 43 percent and 21 fewer teens had multiple sex partners. Meanwhile, the number of teens committing suicide dropped 38 percent from 1990 to 2007, he said.

There are cases of children who have taken their lives after being cyberbullied but they are rare, and frequently there are other factors involved, making it difficult to blame the suicide on a single event.

Finkelhor isn’t asserting that the Internet is making kids safer, but the data clearly show that kids aren’t at greater risk since they started going online.

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also show that bullying — while still a significant problem — has not become more prevalent over the past few years. Bullying among high school students (Grades 9-12) remained flat (20%) between 2009 and 2011 with a slight decrease among boys and a slight increase for girls. The report found that in 2009, girls were twice as likely (22% vs 11%) to be “electronically bullied” than boys.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). 1991-2011 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey data.

Challenges remain. While most kids aren’t bullied, a significant minority are and the numbers are higher for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) youth and those who are “perceived as different from their peers, such as being overweight or underweight, wearing glasses or different clothing, being new to a school, or being unable to afford what kids consider ‘cool,’” according to the government website StopBullying.gov.

It’s also important to realize that the consequences of bullying can range from mildly annoying to extremely serious. Adults need to pay attention to all cases, but the response should be measured and proportional. Research has shown that many kids are able to handle some bullying incidents on their own or with the help of their peers. But there are some cases where adult — and sometimes even law enforcement — intervention is necessary. It’s important to get all the facts and to avoid overreacting.

Just as with public health, when it comes to online risk, one size doesn’t fit all. We need to continue to provide positive rather than fear-based Internet safety education to all children. And we need to give extra attention to the smaller number of kids who are at risk and helpful intervention for the those few who are in trouble.

As I previously wrote, cyberbullying is a serious problem, but not an epidemic.  Yet, there continue to be widespread reports that bullying has reached epidemic proportions. This misinformation can actually have the unintended consequence of increasing bullying.

One study, from the Crimes Against Children Research Center, showed that bullying has actually decreased in recent years, and no credible studies have shown a significant recent increase.  The recent EU Kids Online (PDF) study from the London School of Economics found that “across Europe, 6% of 9 to 16-year-old Internet users have been bullied online, and 3% confess to having bullied others.” In the U.S., the Cyberbullying Research Center found that 20% of  ”randomly selected 11 to 18 year old students in 2010 indicated they had been a victim at some point in their life.”

Even the most optimistic numbers indicate a problem but, I wouldn’t call this an “epidemic” of either bullying or cyberbullying as some articles and TV shows  have suggested.

Some well-meaning advocacy groups have contributed to the misinformation by releasing data suggesting that the majority (in some cases the vast majority) of youth have been bullied or have bullied others, though most surveys have put the percentages much lower — typically around 20%. One reason for the discrepancy in the research results is the lack of a uniformly agreed upon definition of bullying. Some studies ask whether “anyone has ever been mean to you” or has “hurt your feelings.” Based on this definition, I am surprised that the rate isn’t near 100%.

Bulling defined

A more widely accepted definition of bullying comes from the Olweus Bullying Prevention program which says that bullying has “three important components:”

1. Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions.
2. Bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time.
3. Bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength.

Olweus is a widely respected bullying prevention program

When these components are used to determine incidents, the rate of bullying is substantially lower. Of course, you can argue with the definition, especially when it comes to online or so-called “cyberbullying,” because – online — a single act of bullying can be repeated over time and it’s harder to agree on the definition of an “imbalance of power,” where a person’s online “power,” influence or presence may have little or nothing to do with traditional means of obtaining power such as physical strength, appearance or popularity.

Social norms research shows  accurate reporting makes kids safer

Putting the bullying problem into its proper perspective doesn’t minimize it, but actually helps prevent it from getting worse. I know that may seem counterintuitive, but there is a lot of solid research that shows that if people overestimate anti-social or harmful behavior, they are more likely to engage in it themselves. In other words, reporting accurately about the rate of bullying actually makes kids  less likely to bully others. Besides, as my ConnectSafely.org co-director Anne Collier wrote in NetFamilyNews, “Kids deserve the truth about cyberbullying.”

Much of this research focuses on health related activities such as smoking, alcohol abuse and overeating, but there is also data on the impact of peer perceptions on bullying.

Overestimating contributes to the problem

A paper (PDF) published in the April, 2011 edition of Group Processes Intergroup Relations, by H. Wesley Perkins, David W. Craig and Jessica M. Perkins,  shows that “variation in perceptions of the peer norm for bullying was significantly associated with personal bullying perpetration and attitudes.” As the authors pointed out, “decades of research in social psychology … have demonstrated the strong tendency of people to conform to peer norms as they look to others in their midst to help define the situation and give guidance on expected behaviors in the group or cultural setting.”

The authors also observed that “adolescents and young adults (incorrectly) tend to believe that risky or problem behaviors and attitudes are most common among peers and think protective responsible action is rare,” and that “these misperceptions then contribute to or exacerbate the problem behavior as more youth begin to support and engage in the behavior than would otherwise be the case if norms were accurately perceived.”

Source: Perkins, H. Wesley, David W. Craig, and Jessica M. Perkins. "Using Social Norms to Reduce Bullying: A Research Intervention in Five Middle Schools." Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2011.

Big gap between perceived bullying vs. actual bullying Source: Perkins, H. Wesley, David W. Craig, and Jessica M. Perkins. "Using Social Norms to Reduce Bullying: A Research Intervention in Five Middle Schools." Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2011

Bullying is not normal and it’s not OK

To put it simply, over-estimating bullying makes it seem like it’s common. And, so the reasoning goes, if it’s common, it must be normal and if it’s normal, it must be OK. Well, it’s not OK and, fortunately, it’s not normal.  And that’s exactly what anti-bullying programs need to emphasize.

Norms awareness campaigns

The authors of the study recommend that schools engage in awareness campaigns that emphasize that most kids don’t bully. In their paper, they give examples of positive media campaigns to help reinforce behaviors that are both positive and normal.

Social norms campaign emphasizes positive behavior (Source: Perkins, H. Wesley, David W. Craig, and Jessica M. Perkins. "Using Social Norms to Reduce Bullying: A Research Intervention in Five Middle Schools." Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2011

Responsible media coverage

While media coverage about bullying can help raise awareness and lead to positive results, it’s important that it be accurate and reasonable. Coverage that exaggerates either the size of the problem or the likely outcomes does little to help and can actually hurt. It’s also important to realize that the impact of bullying can range from mildly annoying to extremely serious. And while it is true that bullying can be a contributing factor to some suicides, it’s also true that it’s rarely the only factor. What’s more, the vast majority of youth who are bullied are able to handle it without extreme reactions.

Parents, educators, government leaders, non-profits, the media, religious organizations and, of course, young people themselves need to step up our efforts to create a positive social climate but we must do so without resorting to histeria  and exaggeration. For more on bullying, visit the International Bullying Prevention Association.

P.S.

One of the responses to this article came from the mother of someone who works for a company that provides moderation services for “kids websites, online games, chat rooms, role play game groups, etc.” She pointed out that her daughter’s company deals with a lot of cases of bullying which prompted my ConnectSafely co-director, Anne Collier, to interview one of the leading authorities on child site moderation.  Anne concluded “not all the negative behavior we see in kids’ online games and virtual worlds is cyberbullying. In fact, very little of it is.” This post is worth a read.

Slide show:

by Larry Magid

I’m glad that media outlets and public officials are shining a light on cyberbullying and bullying in general. It’s important to pay attention to this serious problem, but we need to keep it in perspective. As bad as it is, cyberbullying is not an epidemic and it’s not killing our children.

Yes, it’s probably one of the more widespread youth risks on the Internet and yes there are some well publicized horrific cases of cyberbullying victims who have committed suicide, but let’s look at this in context.

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are likely other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event does occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues.

“Suicide,” said psychologist Dr. Patti Agatson, “is a complex and multifaceted act that is the result of a combination of factors in any individual.  What we need to learn more about is what are the protective factors, since many youth are bullied and do not engage in suicidal behaviors.” Agaston is a board member of the International Bullying Prevention Association (IBPA) that’s planning an upcoming conference  themed “Bullying and Intolerance: From Risk to Resiliency?

Bullying and teen suicide rates not rising

While there is increased awareness of the dangers of bullying and rightful concern over suicide, the percentage of youth who report being physically bullied actually decreased between 2003 and 2008 from 22% to 15%, according to a peer reviewed study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. And before making any assumptions about technology contributing to teen suicide, take a look at government data that shows (with the exception of 2004) a slight gradual decline in teen suicide rates from the 1990s to 2008.

High risk groups

Certain populations — especially gay, lesbian and transgender (LGBT) youth, experience a significantly higher rate of bullying. An Iowa State University study found that 54% of LGBT youth had been victims of cyberbullying within the past 30 days. 45% of the respondents “reported feeling depressed as a result of being cyberbullied,” according to the study’s authors. 38% felt embarrassed, and 28% felt anxious about attending school. The authors reported that “more than a quarter (26%) had suicidal thoughts.

Numbers don’t show a cyberbullying epidemic

Research from the Cyberbullying Research Center indicates that about one in five teens have been cyberbullied at least once in their lifetimes and 10% in the past 30 days.  That’s bad, but not an epidemic.  A 2010 study by Cox Communications came up with numbers similar to those from the Cyberbullying Research Center, finding that approximately 19 percent of teens say they’ve been cyberbullied online or via text message and 10 percent say they’ve cyberbullied someone else. Partly because there is no single accepted definition of cyberbullying, you will find other numbers that are much higher and much lower.

One thing we know about cyberbullying is that it’s often associated with real-world bullying. A UCLA study found that 85 percent of those bullied online were also bullied at school.

Exaggeration can increase risk

It may seem counterintuitive but research has shown that exaggeration and scare tactics can actually increase risk (see this brief slideshow). Exagerating bullying makes it like like it’s normal: “Everyone’s does it so it must be OK.” Norms research from Professors H. Wesley Perkins and David Craig has shown that emphasizing that most kids don’t bully actually decreases bullying. As Cyberbullying Research Center co-director Justin Patchin said in my CBS News/CNET podcast, kids have a tendency to way overestimate the percentage of kids who bully (for more on why that’s a problem, see this from my ConnectSafely.org co-director,  Anne Collier).  When reporting on suicide risk, it’s important for media to study guidelines and be senstive to risk of copycat suicides.

Cyberbullying defined

The most commonly recognized definition of bullying includes repeated, unwanted aggressive behavior over a period of time with an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. In theory, that also covers cyberbullying, but some have taken a broader approach to cyberbullying to also include single or occasional episodes of a person insulting another person online. Indeed, because of the possibility of it being forwarded, a single episode of online harassment can have long-term consequences. “‘Power’ and ‘repetition’ may be manifested a bit differently online than in traditional bullying, Susan Limber, professor of psychology at Clemson University, said in an interview that appeared in a publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. She added, “a student willing to abuse technology can easily wield great power over his or her target just by having the ability to reach a large audience, and often by hiding his or her identity.”

Manifestations of cyberbullying include name calling, sending embarrassing pictures, sharing personal information or secrets without permission, and spreading rumors. It can also include trickery, exclusion, and impersonation.

Not all bullying is equally harmful

Some have a much broader definition of cyberbullying that can include any type of mean or rude comment, even if it’s not particularly hurtful or traumatic.

When talking about bullying and cyberbullying, it’s important to remember that not every incident is equally harmful.  There are horrendous cases where children are terribly hurt but there are many cases where kids are able to handle it themselves. That’s not to say it’s ever right — there is never an excuse for being mean — but parents and authorities need to avoid jumping to immediate conclusions until they understand the severity of an incident. And, of course, different children will react differently to incidents depending on a number of factors including their own physiological makeup, vulnerability and resiliency.

Signs of cyberbullying

It’s not always obvious if a child is a victim of cyberbullying, but some possible signs include: suddenly being reluctant to go online or use a cell phone; avoiding a discussion about what they’re doing online; depression, mood swings, change in eating habits; and aloofness or a general disinterest in school and activities. A child closing the browser or turning off the cell phone when a parent walks in the room can be a sign of cyberbullying, though it can also be a sign of other issues including an inappropriate relationship or just insistence on privacy.

Preventing and stopping cyberbullying

There are no silver bullets but at ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don’t respond, don’t retaliate; talk to a trusted peer or adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, “be a friend, not a bystander.” Don’t forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool.

Act, but don’t overreact

If your child is cyberbullied, don’t start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That’s one reason kids often don’t talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene to protect the child’s right to

For more

Tips to Help Stop Cyberbullying (from ConnectSafely.org)

Resources for Students and Parents from CBS News’ 48 Hours

Cyberbullying Epidemic? No!  by Anne Collier

Let’s not create a cyberbullying panic

Cyberbullying 101: Fact vs. Fiction - interview with Justin Patchin (Podcast) (Transcript)

Is the ‘bullying epidemic’ a media myth?

CBS News 48 Hours Bullying Resources Page

Tips to Stop Cyberbullying

We need to marginalize bullies, whether they’re on a schoolyard, on the Internet or on cable TV. We need to teach young people that bullying is neither acceptable nor normal. Every one of us has to start modeling how we want our children to behave. They learn not from how we tell them to act but how we act in their presence.

Unfortunately, there are some bad role models on the public stage.

The rhetoric both before and after the House of Representatives vote on health care is a case in point. While I don’t support their cause, I admire the fact that some health care opponents and conservative activists rally to express their opposition to policies they don’t like. That’s not only their right but an American tradition worth celebrating.

But is it helpful for radio and TV personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to demonize or ridicule those they disagree with? For example, in 2006 Limbaugh made fun of actor Michael J. Fox’s battle with Parkinson’s disease. Limbaugh mimicked Fox’s shaking and claimed that Fox exaggerates the effects of his disease “It’s purely an act,” he said.  Beck in a recent broadcast referred to several Obama administration officials as Marxists, communists, socialists and Maoists.

Name-calling and publicly questioning someone’s patriotism is bullying and hardly a good example for our youth. And it’s not just the political right that’s guilty of this. I was not pleased with the title of (now) Sen. Al Franken’s 1996 book, “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations.” Franken was a pundit, not a senator, when he wrote it, but he and his publishers could have come up with a title that didn’t make fun of Limbaugh’s weight.

I don’t know for sure what effect such rude behavior by public figures has on youth, but it correlates with an apparent rise in mean behavior among teens in America.

Depending on what study you read, fifteen percent to 30 percent of teens say they have been cyberbullied. And lately, there have been some tragic cases. One can never know for sure what role bullying plays in a person’s decision to take her own life, but Alexis Pilkington, a 17-year-old soccer player from Long Island, committed suicide last month after being taunted on FormSpringMe.com with cruel comments that continued even after her death.

It’s important to avoid jumping to the conclusion that a suicide was “caused” by any single event or series of events, including bullying or cyberbullying. Still, bullying is a terrible thing to endure and there’s no question that it can cause depression and play a role in self-destructive behavior.

There is also the recent case of Phoebe Prince, a Massachusetts teen who hanged herself earlier this year after enduring threats and verbal abuse, mostly in person but also online and through text messages. Last week, it was announced that nine of her classmates will face criminal charges, including statutory rape, violation of civil rights resulting in bodily injury, criminal harassment and stalking. Prosecuting teens may be the only weapon the local district attorney has to deal with this problem, but we also need to find ways to prevent it.

And then there is the Philadelphia story. After receiving messages on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and other online sites, thousands of young people have been gathering on street corners in the “city of brotherly love” in what is commonly called a “flash mob.” But unlike most flash mobs, which are typically fun and positive, these youths have been creating mobs in the ugliest sense of the word — fighting, screaming racial epithets, disrupting businesses and generally behaving like hooligans

We need to remind ourselves and our children that this kind of behavior is not only wrong, but it’s abnormal and weird. Plenty of research shows that people are influenced by “social norms,” how they think others behave. If people know that their neighbors don’t smoke, they’re less likely to smoke. The same is true with bullying.

In other words, most people are nice and they’re the ones we need to emulate. It’s time to tune out the loudmouth boors who demonstrate their own inadequacy by picking on others.

Iowa State researchers Robyn Cooper and Warren Blumenfeld (photo by Jaclyn Hansel)

by Larry Magid

A study by Iowa State University researchers Warren Blumenfeld and Robyn Cooper found about half of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and allied youths are regular victims of cyberbullying, which causes psychological and emotional distress to victims — producing thoughts of suicide in some who are repeatedly victimized.”

“Allied youth” refers to young people who are openly supportive of LGBT youth.

The survey of 444 junior high, high school and college students between the ages of 11 and 22 (including 350 self-identified non-heterosexual subjects) found that 54% of LGBT youth had been victims of cyberbullying within the past 30 days. 45% of the respondents “reported feeling depressed as a result of being cyberbullied,” according to the study’s authors. 38% felt embarrassed, and 28% felt anxious about attending school. The authors reported that “more than a quarter (26%) had suicidal thoughts.”

As study co-author Warren Blumenfeld pointed out in an interview for a CNET podcast, to be considered bullying “it has to be repeated, it has to exist between people of different power relationships, with someone with more social power, physical strength over someone who’s considered to be less powerful.” It also has to occur over time with “numerous occasions for even it to be considered bullying.”

Youth leadership

Blumenfeld said “one of the biggest things that the participants are talking about is that this is a youth leadership issue.” Young people “want to see more training developed so that the peer leaders in the schools can be the ones who can act as positive role models to interrupt this kind of behavior in the schools and within the communities and to show in terms of ‘norms theory’ that this is not acceptable and this is not proper behavior and for the youths themselves to take more responsibility.”

He added that there are “are a lot of actors in the drama of bullying … the perpetrators, those who erk on the perpetrators and those who are the bystanders who know what’s going on and do nothing. There also are those who are the “potential allies, those who for one reason or another don’t feel comfortable yet to interrupt the behavior.” He added that ‘there are the actual allies who interrupt the abuse and there are the targets of the abuse.”

He said “we really need to find better ways to empower the bystander to be an ally.”

On a personal note, Blumenfeld was a childhood friend of mine. We were both bullied in school for, among other things, our last names. Kids called him “Warren Blubberfeld” and me “Larry Faggot.” Ironically, he was the one who was gay and I was the one who was overweight.

You can listen to my CBS News/CNET audio podcast interview with Warren Blumenfield here.

There was a time when to misbehave in school you had to be in school. These days technology makes it possible for youth to reach through both space and time to harass or bully classmates, regardless of physical location. For example, a group of kids could each be sitting in their own homes on a Saturday night, using their computers to contribute to a website or MySpace or Facebook social-networking page that demeans, harasses, defames, or impersonates a fellow student. The activity is taking place off campus, outside of school hours, and no school equipment is being used. Yet come Monday, that online activity could have a very real impact on campus. Not only might fellow students have seen it prior to arriving at school, they might also access that page at school on school computers or their own mobile phones. It could have a negative impact on the victim(s) or even cause a disruption school-wide.

Bullying is not new. It’s probably been going on in one form or another since humans started inhabiting the planet. What is new is that it’s now possible for kids to use the Internet, their cell phones, social-networking sites, and even game consoles to harm, impersonate, or embarrass others. And because the data is digital, it can be forwarded, archived, and searched pretty much forever.

It is also possible to express oneself in ways that are lewd and offensive and even to appear in or distribute nude or sexually suggestive photos via computer or cell phone that can be viewed from both off and on school grounds. We now have a term for that—sexting—and it too is becoming an issue for educators.

Is it at school, at home, or both?

When we explore the example of kids posting malicious content online on their own time, it’s happening outside the reach of school officials. But is it really outside their jurisdiction? Even though the behavior may be taking place away from school, it could be having an impact on campus. Even though students are creating the webpage away from school, others may be reading it as school.

So what are school officials to do? Should they ignore the behavior, discipline the students involved, or look for an alternative way to deal with the problem? The answer isn’t obvious.

The problem is that technology has complicated a reasonably clear set of policy directions set down by the United States Supreme Court in two landmark cases. In the 1968 case Tinker et al. v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court grappled with a situation in which a group of students was suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The students took the district to court, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor.

Speaking for the court, Justice William Brennan wrote, “The record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred.” He added, “They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.”

Score one for the right of kids to express themselves on campus.

In 1983, in Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Supreme Court did place some limits on student speech. In that case, Matthew Fraser was suspended for using sexual innuendos in a student government nomination speech of a fellow student.

Fraser was suspended for disruptive activity and, after a series of legal decisions and reversals, the Supreme Court finally ruled that it was appropriate for the school to take action. The court found a big difference between the political protest of the Tinker self-expression and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “Democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. But these ‘fundamental values’ must also take into account consideration of the sensibilities of others.” He added, “The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.”

To simplify these two rulings, it could be said that schools must not punish political expression as long as it doesn’t lead to disruption, but they can impose sanctions against certain types of lewd speech that go beyond the “boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.” Based on that ruling, it would seem pretty obvious that schools have the right—some would say responsibility—to intervene in cases of harassment or cyberbullying. But the case law refers to activities that took place on campus. These landmark cases were decided long before students started using cell phones and Internet browsers that could reach across time and space.

Let’s put this in a modern context. As I said at the start, kids don’t have to be in school to impact what happens in school. Let’s say a group of students decide to create a webpage stating that “Susie is a slut.” Susie might have grounds for a civil lawsuit based on defamation (though she may have difficulty finding a lawyer willing to take such a case), but the students’ statement is clearly not a violation of any criminal law. But what happens if, on the next day at school, other kids start laughing at Susie or making lewd or mean comments? Suddenly the students’ off-campus behavior is having an impact at school and could even jeopardize Susie’s ability to obtain an education.

In that case, says Nancy Willard, executive director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, the school may have grounds to intervene. “When it’s outside of school, officials only have the authority to respond if the impact of that speech is going to come to school and will substantially disrupt school or interfere with the rights of other students at school,” she says. “But they don’t have the authority to respond to every- thing else or seek to impose moral values or respond to speech contrary to the school’s mission.”

Willard, who is not a practicing attorney but does have a law degree, believes that schools can and should intervene if the off-campus actions cause “a hostile environment for a student that is preventing that student from receiving an education.” And she adds, “If [the action] applies to a protected class—racial, sexual, or disability—there is a probability that officials have an obligation to respond.”

Scott Laurence, an administrator with the Palo Alto (Calif.) Unified School District, agrees with Willard. He states, “We have the right to intervene if [the activity] has spilled into the educational system and has a direct impact on the educational learning environment. Jurisdiction is always hard, but when you see it has a direct impact I believe that is when we have the right and responsibility to intervene.” Laurence says it is similar t an off-campus fight on a Saturday night that spills over a school. We don’t need to go back to the fight, he says, but we have the responsibility to make sure it’s a good environment on Monday morning.

Jennifer MacLennan, a school-law attorney with Arizona law firm Gust Rosenfeld, says, “The test for being able to discipline the person who set up the site is whether there is a nexus or connection from the off-campus activity or comment to activities occurring on the school campus.” For example, if other kid are discussing the webpage while at school and treating the victim differently, then MacLennan says there is enough of connection that you can discipline the students who create site. Like others, she points out that administrators may get into a battle of competing rights. “The district could be sued for disciplining a child or failing to discipline a child,” she says.

A Dissenting view

American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Aden Fine challenges the right of schools officials to take any actions for behavior, however offensive, that occurs off campus. “When students are not in school, it’s for parents to decide what students can and can’t say. It is not for the schools to be involved.” Fine says speech on the Internet is protected like all other speech. Even if there is an impact at school, he believes that does not justify suppressing or punishing speech. If a disruption at campus occurs, officials should punish the students who are being disruptive, not students whose speech may or may not have inspired that disruption.

If school officials are to act against a student accused of off- campus online harassment, then districts should gather information about where and when it occurred. “Is it related to a larger pattern of bullying and harassment that’s taking place on and off campus?” asks Sara Levitan Kaatz, school-law attorney with the California law firm of Lozano Smith. She says that courts want to see substantial disruption—not that a kid pulled out a printout of a MySpace page in class and caused a distraction. Rather, districts need to document how many kids are talking about it, if they are accessing it on campus, and if and how it is disrupting the educational experience at school for the victim.

Kaatz says there is a balancing act between free speech and the district’s commitment to keeping a safe environment. “I don’t know a single administrator who wants to violate a student’s free-speech right, but I do know a lot of administrators who wake up every morning wanting to make sure this is a safe school environment for everybody there,” she states.

In 2005, the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania heard the case Latour v. Riverside Beaver School District, in which 14-year-old Anthony Lautour and his parents sued the school for expelling him for writing rap music in his home and publishing it online. The child, who never wrote music at school or brought his songs in, posted a song that contained violent language as part of a rap battle with another musician. The school worried that the songs contained terrorist threats and harassment. Speaking on National Public Radio, Latour’s attorney Kim Watterson said, “You can’t punish based upon words alone… [You need to determine] whether the speaker means to communicate an expression of an intent to do serious bodily harm.” In a preliminary injunction, the court ruled in favor of the student, who was reinstated at school. The settlement included a $90,000 payment and the district’s agreeing to amend its policy regarding circumstances as to when it can exclude students from school based on speech.

In Weedsport Central School District v. Wisniewski, however, the court ruled in favor of the district after an eighth-grader sent messages to friends from home that contained an icon depicting a pistol firing at a man’s head with the words “Kill Mr. VanderMolen,” the student’s English teacher. The Second Circuit District court judge concluded that the icon was not protected speech because it constituted a true threat.

Tom Hutton, senior staff attorney for the National School Board Association, sees it both ways, acknowledging that there is a good deal of uncertainty. Hutton observes that technology changes much faster than law and policy; because some of these issues “play out in schools before they do in the rest of society, school officials need to make decisions before they have clear guidance from the law.”

Hutton notes that states are passing cyberbullying laws asking schools to tackle the problem, while at the same time schools are being accused of overreaching and acting like Internet police. “No matter what you do, a lot people are going to be unhappy,” says Hutton. “You can’t win that debate.” Hutton recommends that school officials become familiar with their state’s cyberbullying laws. Several states are considering cyberbullying laws and at least 13 states have already passed one, including Arkansas, California, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington.

The specifics of the laws vary by state. Some simply require school boards to have a policy while others are more detailed. California law AB 86 went into effect in January 2009, giving schools the authority to suspend or expel students for bullying via the Internet, in text messages, or via other electronic means. The bill covers activities on school grounds, while going to or coming from school, during lunch period whether on or off campus, and during or while going to or coming from a school- sponsored activity.

Steps schools can take

Hutton, along with every other expert interviewed for this article, argues that disciplinary action shouldn’t be a first response. “If you are confronted with the situation, you need to think of the full range of options you have,” he says. “It may be that in the final analysis some discipline is warranted, but you should ask yourself if there’s a way to solve the problem that doesn’t bring up these legal issues.”

Short of unleashing disciplinary action, there are a wide range of actions available to staff, including confronting the child, bringing in the parents, or even contacting the social- networking sites involved to see if they have any remedies. Hutton says educators also can make sure kids know that actions have consequences. Make sure they are aware that college admission counselors and employers know how to search for names, and victims have rights and can sue the students. In addition, students also can be expelled from social- networking sites for violation of terms of service, which universally prohibit bullying, harassment, and impersonation along with nudity and other inappropriate content.

Molly McCloskey, director of constituent services for the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, feels that conversations with students often can go a lot further than confrontations and disciplinary actions. “I come at this from a school-counselor lens,” she says. “Once kids are in school, the adults in school are responsible for the health, safety, and support of each child in that building. Whether it happens off campus or on, it impacts the building and the ability of each child to be successful. So the school needs to respond from a climate lens rather than a punitive lens.”

Regardless of whether the school has jurisdiction to officially intervene in something that happened off campus, it has—in McCloskey’s opinion—the responsibility and moral authority to educate and try to prevent bullying before it becomes an issue. “The school is responsible for what happens inside the building, but the most powerful way that schools and communities can deal with this situation is to be aligned way before it happens,” she states.  Coordination with other agencies is the key to success. “If the value of school, social-service agencies, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other groups are all in harmony, then this sort of situation is less likely to happen,” asserts McCloskey.

Camille Townsend, an attorney and Palo Alto, Calif., school board member, advises parents and educators to start with a non- disciplinary approach: “If your kid is being bullied, you look for help wherever you can find  it. If the student is being a bully, certainly their parents don’t want that to happen either. Rarely do you get a parent that doesn’t want that to stop.” Getting both sets of parents involved can often stop the problem.  “The school can operate with a pretty gentle glove to get things to the point where they need to be,” she says.

This article first appeared in the Summer 2009 issue of  Threshold, a now-defunct magazine published by Cable in the Classroom.

The first things you need to know about cyberbullying are that it’s not an epidemic and it’s not killing our children. Yes, it’s probably one of the more widespread youth risks on the Internet and yes there are some well publicized cases of cyberbullying victims who have committed suicide, but let’s look at this in context.

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event doesn’t occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including long-term depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues. And the most famous case of “cyberbullying”–the tragic suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier–was far from typical. Cyberbullying is almost always peer to peer, but this was a case of an adult (the mom of one of Megan’s peers) being accused of seeking revenge on a child who had allegedly bullied her own child.

And, as per “epidemic,” it depends on how you define cyberbullying.

The most commonly recognized definition of bullying includes repeated, unwanted aggressive behavior over a period of time with an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. In theory, that also covers cyberbullying, but some have taken a broader approach to cyberbullying to also include single or occasional episodes of a person insulting another person online. Indeed, because of the possibility of it being forwarded, a single episode of online harassment can have long-term consequences. “‘Power’ and ‘repetition’ may be manifested a bit differently online than in traditional bullying, Susan Limber, professor of psychology at Clemson University, said in an interview that appeared in a publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. She added, “a student willing to abuse technology can easily wield great power over his or her target just by having the ability to reach a large audience, and often by hiding his or her identity.”

Manifestations of cyberbullying include name calling, sending embarrassing pictures, sharing personal information or secrets without permission, and spreading rumors. It can also include trickery, exclusion, and impersonation.

Fuzzy numbers

Partly because there is no single accepted definition of cyberbullying, the extent of the problem is all over the map. I’ve seen some reports claim that up to 80 percent of online youth have experienced cyberbullying, while two national studies have put the percentage closer to one-third. A UCLA study conducted in 2008 found that 41 percent of teens surveyed reported between one and three online bullying incidents over the course of a year.

A recent study by Cox Communications came up with lower numbers, finding that approximately 19 percent of teens say they’ve been cyberbullied online or via text message and 10 percent say they’ve cyberbullied someone else.

One thing we know about cyberbullying is that it’s often associated with real-world bullying. The UCLA study found that 85 percent of those bullied online were also bullied at school.

Signs of cyberbullying

It’s not always obvious if a child is a victim of cyberbullying, but some possible signs include: suddenly being reluctant to go online or use a cell phone; avoiding a discussion about what they’re doing online; depression, mood swings, change in eating habits; and aloofness or a general disinterest in school and activities. A child closing the browser or turning off the cell phone when a parent walks in the room can be a sign of cyberbullying, though it can also be a sign of other issues including an inappropriate relationship or just insistence on privacy.

Preventing and stopping cyberbullying

After struggling with a school-wide bullying problem, Aaron Hansen, principal of White Pine Middle School in Ely, Nev., told Fox News that he asked the kids to fill out a survey indicating when the bullying took place and who the bullies were. He then invited the alleged offenders into his office to tell them “your peers feel that like you’re not very nice to people at times and they feel like sometimes you’re a bully.” Based on working with those kids and working with their needs–including problems at home–the school was able to reduce the problem.

Not every situation will resolve itself quite so easily, but identifying the reasons kids are acting as bullies can go a long way toward preventing it as can educational programs that stress ethics and cyber citizenship (“netiquette”). It also helps kids to know what to do if they are victims of bullying. At ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don’t respond, don’t retaliate; talk to a trusted adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, “be a friend, not a bystander.” Don’t forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool.

If your child is a victim of cyberbullying, don’t start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That’s one reason kids often don’t talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene.

Be careful what we legislate

There are lots of state laws that focus on cyberbullying, some requiring schools to provide educational resources. While I’m all for education, I think we need to be careful about any legislation that outlaws cyberbullying. U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has proposed H.R. 1966, well meaning legislation that could imprison for up to two years, “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” On the surface, it seems fine but as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has pointed out, it could also be used to punish political and other forms of speech. “I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone),” he writes, “I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Professor Volokh said that if the law is passed, he expects it to be “struck down as facially overbroad.”

This post originally appeared on SafeKids.com

The Internet and the way young people use technology are constantly evolving, but the safety messages change very slowly, if at all.

Like technology itself, Internet safety has to evolve. Back in 1994, when I wrote the first widely disseminated Internet safety publication, I advised parents not to let kids put personal information or photos online and — because of what turned out to be an exaggerated fear of predators — I urged them to avoid online conversations with strangers. Back then, along with trying to keep kids away from porn, Internet safety was mostly about protecting children from dangerous adults.

But starting around 2005, a new phase of the Web — often referred to as “Web 2.0″ — prompted some Internet safety advocates to focus on ways kids could get in trouble for what they post on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. It was in that year that Anne Collier and I founded BlogSafety.org (later renamed ConnnectSafely.org) so we could provide a forum for discussing safety issues on the Web. It was also around that time that politicians and the media, especially the TV show “To Catch a Predator,” started whipping up fears of predators trolling the Web for vulnerable children.

But after carefully reviewing available research, statistics show that the likelihood of a young person being harmed by an online stranger is quite rare, and sexual solicitations and harassment are most often from peers. And to the extent it has occurred, it affects teens, not young children. Based on studies by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, the overwhelming majority of crimes against youths continue to take place in the “real world,” mostly by adults known to the child.

But that doesn’t mean that the Internet is a risk-free zone. It’s just that young people are far more likely to be harmed by other youth or the consequences of their own online behavior than by adult criminals.

Their interactions are largely with people they know from the real world. As danah boyd (she prefers a lower case d & b) observed in her doctoral dissertation, Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics (PDF), “teen participation in social network sites is driven by their desire to socialize with peers. Their participation online is rarely divorced from offline peer culture; teens craft digital self-expressions for known audiences and they socialize almost exclusively with people they know.”

This understanding of youth risk led to a whole new phase of Internet safety education focusing on such things as cyberbullying and urging youth to avoid posting material that could be embarrassing or get them into trouble with authorities and potential future employers. Recently, the focus has turned to the emotional and legal consequences of “sexting,” — kids sending nude pictures of themselves via cell phones or the Web. But Anne Collier observed in NetFamilyNews.org, we run the risk of “technopanics” over sexting and bullying.

What we’ve learned from observing how kids use the Net, mobile phones, gaming devices and other interactive technology is that there is really no distinction between online and offline behaviors. Technology is woven into their lives. They don’t go online, they ARE online. So it’s really about youth safety — not Internet safety.

It’s about helping young people make wise choices not just in how they use technology but in how they live their lives. Internet safety is more than just the absence of danger. It also includes finding ways to use technology for learning, collaboration, community building, political activism, self-help and reaching out to others.

These are not just philosophical arguments. They’re pragmatic because preaching about safety or trying lock down the Internet doesn’t protect kid. Trying to instill fear — especially based on myths — actually increases danger because it causes kids to tune out good advice.

Sure, there are technologies that can keep kids from using social networking services or visiting inappropriate Web sites. But, like fences around swimming pools, the use of filters at home and school can’t protect them forever. That’s why we teach kids to swim. Not only does knowing how to swim help prevent drowning, it empowers them to thrive in the water instead of fearing it. The same is true with technology. As kids mature into teens, we must pull back on the technological controls in favor of self-control.

In an email interview, Dr. Larry Rosen, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills and author of Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation observed, “sadly, too many parents think that using technology to track their children’s keystrokes or restrict access to certain websites is sufficient parenting. It is not. Parents must be involved with their children’s virtual lifestyles developing trust, being aware of any potential problems, learning about the technologies they use, and communicating often.”

Child Safety on the Information Highway
Child Safe Search
Family Contract for Online Safety
Online Safety Quiz (for pre-teens)

Tips from ConnectSafely.org
How to Prevent Sexting
Cell Phone Safety Tips
Tips to Stop Cyberbullying
How to Recognize Grooming
Social Web Safety Tips for Teens

Visit our sister sites: ConnectSafely, SafeTeens & NetFamilyNews ]]> http://www.safekids.com/2009/02/15/tools-for-families/feed/ 0 http://www.safekids.com/2009/02/11/predator-panic-a-risky-distraction/ http://www.safekids.com/2009/02/11/predator-panic-a-risky-distraction/#comments Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:19:01 +0000 larrymagid http://safekids.com/?p=173 Continue reading →]]> by Larry Magid

I’ve been an Internet safety advocate since 1993 and right now I’m discouraged and angry about what’s going on in this field.

I’m angry because people who ought to know better are trying to mislead the public with false information about online risks, which is diverting attention away from real risks. And I’m not alone.

Many respected online safety organizations and leading youth-risk researchers are trying to shift the discussion away from mostly predator danger to youth behavior risk. Thanks to some politicians, it’s an uphill battle.

Online safety groups and public officials should be spending our time educating families on how to avoid real risks that affect most kids – like bullying, harassment and unwanted exposure to inappropriate material. We also need to do a better job of identifying and reaching the small minority of “at risk” kids who are putting themselves at greater risk by the way they behave online.

At issue is the constant drumbeat of predator panic coming from state attorneys general, including Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Roy Cooper of North Carolina, who are co-chairs of the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking, which represents attorneys general from 49 states. Although their rhetoric is purported to help protect young people from harm, the actual impact of their campaign to rid social networks of predators may be inadvertently putting young people at greater risk.

In addition to shifting attention away from more common online dangers, they have proposed the use of age-verification and parental controls which could actually increase risk by driving teens “underground,” possibly to overseas sites that are far more dangerous than sites like MySpace and Facebook.

What’s more, all the hoopla is disrupting the work of several of the most respected non-profit Internet safety organizations which, ironically, have to spend resources countering this misleading information at the cost of focusing on how to help young people use the Internet more safely.

A bit of background

For more than two years, these and other elected officials have been talking about predator dangers on MySpace and other social networking sites and calling for the use of age-verification technology to help separate minors from adults. A year ago, the working group of attorneys general entered an agreement with MySpace to form a task force to study the issue.

After months of careful consideration, including a review of all research, the task force came back with a report that questioned the prevalence of predator danger and also questioned both the desirability and effectiveness of using any single technology to verity the age of users. Instead of carefully considering the report, it was rejected out of hand.

The justice officers’ reaction to the report was best summed up by Blumenthal, who recently said it was, “based on outdated and incomplete data – falsely downplaying the threat of predators on social networking sites.”

I have a great deal of respect for much of the work that Blumenthal, Cooper and other attorneys general do for public safety and to protect consumers, but when it comes to Internet safety, they continue to rely on anecdotal evidence rather than available peer-reviewed academic research (PDF).

Disclosure: I served on the task force as co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from several Internet and social networking companies including MySpace and Facebook. I also served as a member of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force and am the founder of SafeKids.com.

Now there’s a new argument based on the disclosure last week that MySpace has evicted 90,000 registered sex offenders from its roles. In a press release, Blumenthal said, “This shocking revelation – resulting from our subpoena – provides compelling proof that social networking sites remain rife with sexual predators.”

But what Blumenthal failed to point out is that 90,000 is not the number of currently or recently evicted registered sex offenders (RSOs) on MySpace, but a cumulative number based on all the RSO’s MySpace has ejected since two years ago when it adopted technology to identify and remove them from its roles.

Facebook, too

In the meantime, Facebook has been under attack for its own reported predator problem. Tech Crunch ran a story last week with the headline “Thousands Of MySpace Sex Offender Refugees Found On Facebook.” It reportedly got the information from John Cardillo, CEO of Sentinel, the security company that helps MySpace and other social networking sites identify registered sex offenders so they can be removed.

Facebook is not one of Sentinel’s customers, but says that it employs other methods to attempt to identify registered sex offenders and others who might endanger its members. This includes relying on Facebook members and working directly with state databases and state attorneys general, according to Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt.

But, the attorneys general who are screaming about predators don’t seem to have information about specific individuals harming children. Facebook, according to Schnitt, “is not aware of a single case where a registered sex offender has contacted a minor through Facebook.”

The same is true on MySpace. According to MySpace chief security officer Hemanshu Nigam, “not one of the deleted MySpace offenders has ever been prosecuted for criminal misconduct with a teen on MySpace.”

Based on surveys with teens, I suspect that this is largely because the vast majority of teens are savvy enough to avoid these creeps. As you would expect, officials from both Facebook and MySpace say that they are doing all they can to rid their sites of registered sex offenders.

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’ll be 100% successful. Short of shutting down their services, I can’t think of anything that can be done to completely eliminate even registered sex offenders, let alone the much larger number of offenders who haven’t been caught and convicted.

They’re everywhere

At the risk of contributing to the paranoia, it’s important to point out sex offenders are also in the real world. Unless we decide to keep them in jail forever, they are going to be among us. They go to malls, they shop at grocery stores, they live in neighborhoods and many have jobs. I know for a fact that there are registered sex offenders living within walking distance from my house and I have no doubt that my children have encountered them in the real world.

And then there are the ones who haven’t been caught. It’s a known fact that some of them teach in our schools, patrol our streets, preach in our places of worship, work in our hospitals and clinics, and coach our kids.

What’s worse, family members, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, account for “a quarter to a third of offenders.” Strangers make up the smallest group with estimates ranging between 7 and 25 percent.

Strangers who meet their victims on the Internet represent an extremely small percentage of all cases, especially compared to family members. It’s analogous to worrying about being killed in a plane crash instead of focusing on driving safely. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is one of several safety organizations that no longer condone the use of the phrase “stranger danger.”

As I’ve pointed out in previous articles, researchers who study sexual assault cases have found very few actual cases of children being sexually molested as a result of a contact they made on the Internet. It happens, but it happens in far fewer numbers than other forms of sexual abuse. And when it does happen, it is almost always a case of a teenager who is taking extraordinary risks online, including – in most cases – engaging in sexual conversation with a person known to be an adult.

I’m not saying this to place blame on the victims or excuse illegal behavior of some adults, but rather to point out that how young people behave online affects their risk.

It’s time that all of us – politicians too – start looking for real solutions and talking with real experts, not just relying on anecdotal data and provocative sound bites.

For more perspective, check out CNET News’ Caroline McArthy’s post on this subject.

]]> http://www.safekids.com/2009/02/11/predator-panic-a-risky-distraction/feed/ 0