http://www.infowars.com/top-court-in-new-york-rules-cyberbullying-law-violates-first-amendment/
The question frequently asked by frustrated parents is “but isn’t vicious texting hate speech’ (and isn’t hate speech against the law)? Even before New York’s Judge Victoria Graffeo argued that “the [Albany county law illegalizing cbyerbyllying]** would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example, an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult“ I put that question to a Constitutional lawyer. Hoping hoping to get a concise, if overly simplified answer, I was not disappointed.
My own lay understanding of hate speech was roughly what any site on the internet will tell you―‘Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.’
What I came to understand over lunch is that no clear “Law” against cruel, nasty, or hateful speech―-just as there is no law against pornography. There are obscenity laws, and there are hate crime laws. But attempts to stuff much of the behavior, images and/or speech that challenges social norms under these laws will simply not hold up in court―as that content is precisely what First Amendment laws aim to protect.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/cyberbullying
http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=76&pageid=385
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm
Upshot: Best course of action still seems to be to be sure your school writes a clear code of conduct policy about cyberbullying―including consequences for incidents posted after school hours. Be sure that policy is plastered everywhere, and that cases are prosecuted by the school, hopefully becoming enough of a deterrent. If the legality of the conduct code itself is challenged, know that every Supreme Court decision since the seminal Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 (1969) has reaffirmed and expanded the kinds of speech schools are allowed to regulate (including Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and most recently, Morse v. Frederick).
What I’m curious to learn is, if addressing this issue in our schools was up to you, how would you handle it―and simultaneously protect ‘freedom of speech’?
** The Albany County law defined cyberbullying as “any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, 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, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.”
The question frequently asked by frustrated parents is “but isn’t vicious texting hate speech’ (and isn’t hate speech against the law)? Even before New York’s Judge Victoria Graffeo argued that “the [Albany county law illegalizing cbyerbyllying]** would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example, an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult“ I put that question to a Constitutional lawyer. Hoping hoping to get a concise, if overly simplified answer, I was not disappointed.
My own lay understanding of hate speech was roughly what any site on the internet will tell you―‘Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.’
What I came to understand over lunch is that no clear “Law” against cruel, nasty, or hateful speech―-just as there is no law against pornography. There are obscenity laws, and there are hate crime laws. But attempts to stuff much of the behavior, images and/or speech that challenges social norms under these laws will simply not hold up in court―as that content is precisely what First Amendment laws aim to protect.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/cyberbullying
http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=76&pageid=385
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm
Upshot: Best course of action still seems to be to be sure your school writes a clear code of conduct policy about cyberbullying―including consequences for incidents posted after school hours. Be sure that policy is plastered everywhere, and that cases are prosecuted by the school, hopefully becoming enough of a deterrent. If the legality of the conduct code itself is challenged, know that every Supreme Court decision since the seminal Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 (1969) has reaffirmed and expanded the kinds of speech schools are allowed to regulate (including Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and most recently, Morse v. Frederick).
What I’m curious to learn is, if addressing this issue in our schools was up to you, how would you handle it―and simultaneously protect ‘freedom of speech’?
** The Albany County law defined cyberbullying as “any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, 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, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.”
