Confronting Cyber-Bullying What Schools Need to Know to Control Misconduct and Avoid Legal Consequences
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Cyber Misconduct: Who Is Lord of the Bullies?
- 2 Profile of Traditional and Cyber-Bullying
- 3 Cyber Libel or Criminal Harassment: When Do Kids Cross the Line?
- 4 Student Free Expression: Do the Schoolhouse Gates Extend to Cyberspace?
- 5 Fostering Positive School Environments: Physical and Virtual
- 6 Censoring Cyberspace: Can Kids Be Controlled?
- 7 The Tragedy of the Commons: Lessons for Cyberspace?
- 8 Cyber Collaboration: Models for Critical Legal Pluralism in Teacher Education Programs
- Notes
- Cases
- Index
- References
4 - Student Free Expression: Do the Schoolhouse Gates Extend to Cyberspace?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Cyber Misconduct: Who Is Lord of the Bullies?
- 2 Profile of Traditional and Cyber-Bullying
- 3 Cyber Libel or Criminal Harassment: When Do Kids Cross the Line?
- 4 Student Free Expression: Do the Schoolhouse Gates Extend to Cyberspace?
- 5 Fostering Positive School Environments: Physical and Virtual
- 6 Censoring Cyberspace: Can Kids Be Controlled?
- 7 The Tragedy of the Commons: Lessons for Cyberspace?
- 8 Cyber Collaboration: Models for Critical Legal Pluralism in Teacher Education Programs
- Notes
- Cases
- Index
- References
Summary
[W]hile children assuredly do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school.
Morse v. Frederick (2007), p. 15Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech…. Speech within the school that substantially interferes with school discipline may be limited. Individual student speech which is unpopular but does not substantially interfere with school discipline is entitled to protection.
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (1988)INTRODUCTION
Chapter 3 engaged in a discussion about cultural differences in the way Asian countries are beginning to address students' cyber misconduct compared with countries in the West. I provided legal definitions for defamation and cyber libel and discussed North American and Australian jurisprudence on cyber libel in the context of a number of controversial case examples. Throughout I noted that despite the very public exposure such expressions receive, students maintain that schools have no right to intervene and argue that when they do, school authorities are intervening in private conversations among friends. Moreover, when students have been suspended for their online comments about teachers, some have protested and challenged their schools in court for infringing rights to freedom of expression.
In this chapter, I examine some of those challenges, to highlight what the courts have said about students' rights to free speech, limits on that speech, and limits on the rights and responsibilities of schools to intervene.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Confronting Cyber-BullyingWhat Schools Need to Know to Control Misconduct and Avoid Legal Consequences, pp. 99 - 126Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
(1999). Preventing youth crime: What works, what doesn't and what it all means for Canadian juvenile justice. Queen's Law Journal, 25, 177–249.Google Scholar
(2005). Cyberbullying: An old problem in a new guise?Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 15, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, Constitution Act, 1982, Canada Act, c. 11 (UK).
(2005, August 8). You wanna take this online? Cyberspace is the 21st century bully's playground where girls play rougher than boys. Time, Canadian Edition, 42–43.Google Scholar
(2001). Educate, mediate, or litigate? What teachers, parents, and administrators must do about student behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
(2007, May 2). Facebook: Student and parent [Electronic version]. The Current. Retrieved May 2, 2007, from http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200705/20070502.html.Google Scholar
, & (2007, March 24). Students, police clash [Electronic version]. TheStar.com. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://www.thestar.com/article/195604.Google Scholar
(2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy beyond the culture of fear. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, J., & Kahn, K. B. (2005). Prejudice, discrimination, and the Internet. In (Ed.), The social psychology of the Internet. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, & (2007, August 26). Student cracks government's 85M porn filter [Electronic version]. Herald Sun. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.news.com.au/story/02359922304224-421,00.html.Google Scholar
It's a girl's world: A documentary about social bullying. (2004). [Video.] Montreal: National Film Board of Canada.
, & (2006, May 30). Discussion: MySpace and Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) [Electronic version]. Digital divide network. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.digitaldivide.net/articles/view.php?ArticleID=592.Google Scholar
, & (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, England /New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
, & (2005). Student freedom of expression: Violent content and safe school balance. McGill Journal of Education, 40, 423–443.Google Scholar
McLaren, P. (1991). Schooling the postmodern body: Critical pedagogy and the politics of enfleshment. In (Ed.), Postmodernism, feminism, and cultural politics: Redrawing educational boundaries (pp. 144–173). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
, & (2007, April). YouTube, MySpace and Facebook: Emerging issues for educators. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for the Practical Study of Law in Education (CAPSLE), Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
PREVNet. (2006, December 15). Cyber-bullying Meeting. PREVNet, Promoting relationships and eliminating violence, a national network funded by Canadian Centres for Excellence, Toronto.
(2007, April). Intimidation.com: Dealing with cyberbullying. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for the Practical Study of Law in Education (CAPSLE) Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
(2006, November 15). Web ensnares teens up to eight hours a day; instant messages average 40 a day. Gazette, p. A14.Google Scholar
(2003). Cyber-bullying, cyber-harassment and the conflict between schools and the First Amendment. Wisconsin Law Review, 6, 1213 at 1215.Google Scholar
(2003). A system on trial: Identifying legal standards for educational, ethical and legally defensible approaches to bullying in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.Google Scholar
(2004). Keeping schools out of court: Legally defensible models of leadership to reduce cyber-bullying. Educational Forum. Delta Kappa Pi, 68, 222–223.Google Scholar
(2008). Cyber-bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom, and the home. Abington, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
, & (2007). Censorship! …or …Selection?: Confronting a curriculum of orthodoxy through pluralistic models. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
, & (2001). Unpublished report on violence in schools and school anti-violence policies for British Columbia Ministry of Education. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Shariff, S., & Strong-Wilson, T. (2005). Bullying and new technologies: What can teachers do to foster socially responsible discourse in the physical and virtual school environments? In (Ed.), Classroom teaching: An introduction (pp. 219–240). New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A. B. v. State of Indiana, No. 67A01-0609-JV-372, 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 694 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2007).
Bethel School District No. 403 et al. v. Fraser, a minor, et al., 478 U. S. 675 (1986).
Beussink v. Woodland R-Ⅳ School District, 30 F. Supp. 2 d 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1988).
Emmett v. Kent School District No 413, 92 F. Supp. 2 d 1088 (WD Wash. 2000).
Garrity v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 18 IER Cases 981 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 2002).
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Attorney General), 1 S. C.R. 927 (1989).
J. S., a Minor v. Bethlehem Area School District, 757 A.2 d 412, 422. (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
Lutes v. Board of Education of Prairie View School Division No. 74, 101 Sask R 232 (1992).
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. ___ (2007).
New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325 (1985).
People v. B. F. Jones, 62 Mich. 304 (1886).
People v. Carlos Overton, 20 NY2 d 360 (1967).
R. v. D. W., B. C. J. No. 627 (2002).
R. v. M. R. M., 3 S. C.R. 393 (1998).
R. v. Oakes 1, S. C.R. 103 (1986).
Singleton v. Board of Education, 894 F. Supp. 386 (D. Kan. 1995).
Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District, 307 F. Supp. 1328, 1340 (S.D. Tex. 1969).
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U. S. 503 (1969).
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jake Baker, 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E. D. Mich. 1995).
- 3
- Cited by