Cyberbullying Prosecutions In Us Law
📌 Overview of Cyberbullying Prosecutions in U.S. Law
Cyberbullying refers to the use of digital technology (social media, messaging, email, etc.) to harass, threaten, or harm others—usually minors. Unlike traditional bullying, it can be anonymous, far-reaching, and persistent.
While there is no federal crime explicitly called “cyberbullying,” such behavior is prosecuted under a variety of state laws and sometimes under federal statutes related to harassment, threats, stalking, or computer misuse.
⚖️ Legal Framework for Cyberbullying
🔹 State Laws
All 50 states have enacted some form of anti-bullying or cyberbullying law.
Some states (e.g., New York, California, Texas, Florida) criminalize specific cyberbullying behaviors like online threats, impersonation, and harassment.
Charges include harassment, stalking, intimidation, or causing emotional distress.
🔹 Federal Laws Used in Cyberbullying Prosecutions
Although not labeled "cyberbullying," federal charges may include:
18 U.S.C. § 875(c): Sending threats via interstate communications.
18 U.S.C. § 2261A: Interstate stalking.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for unauthorized access during online bullying.
Civil rights violations in cases involving discrimination-based harassment (e.g., race, gender, disability).
⚖️ Key Cyberbullying Prosecution Cases
1. United States v. Lori Drew (Missouri, 2008)
Background:
Lori Drew, an adult, posed as a teenage boy (“Josh”) on MySpace to torment 13-year-old Megan Meier, who later died by suicide after receiving a cruel message saying the world would be better off without her.
Charges:
Drew was charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating MySpace’s terms of service.
Outcome:
Convicted by a jury, but the conviction was later vacated by the judge, who ruled that violating a website’s terms wasn't enough to establish criminal intent.
Significance:
First cyberbullying prosecution to attract national attention.
Exposed limitations in federal law and prompted state legislatures to draft clearer cyberbullying laws.
2. People v. Daniel Ciccarelli (New York, 2013)
Background:
Ciccarelli cyberbullied a classmate by sending threatening texts and creating fake social media posts implying the victim was involved in sexual activity.
Charges:
Aggravated harassment under New York Penal Law § 240.30.
Outcome:
Convicted; court emphasized intent to harass and distress was clear from the digital messages.
Significance:
Used existing harassment statutes to prosecute cyberbullying.
Reinforced legal recognition of emotional harm caused through digital platforms.
3. State v. Robert T. (Connecticut, 2010)
Background:
Teenager Robert T. created a website targeting a disabled student with degrading images and captions.
Charges:
Charged under Connecticut’s cyberbullying and hate crime laws.
Outcome:
Adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court.
Significance:
One of the early uses of disability-based harassment laws in a cyberbullying context.
Illustrated how hate crimes statutes can enhance penalties when bullying targets protected groups.
4. State v. Matthew Herrick (New York, 2019)
Background:
An ex-boyfriend used dating apps to impersonate Herrick, sending over 1,000 strangers to his home and workplace under false pretenses, resulting in stalking and harassment.
Charges:
While this case was also the subject of a civil lawsuit against Grindr, the impersonator was charged with stalking and impersonation under New York cyber harassment statutes.
Outcome:
Convicted.
Significance:
Demonstrated how impersonation via technology can be prosecuted as cyberbullying and stalking.
Shows crossover between cyberbullying and online harassment laws.
5. Commonwealth v. Carter (Massachusetts, 2017)
Background:
Michelle Carter encouraged her boyfriend via texts and phone calls to commit suicide. He eventually died by carbon monoxide poisoning.
Charges:
Involuntary manslaughter under Massachusetts law.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 15 months in jail.
Significance:
Though not charged under cyberbullying laws per se, this case is frequently cited in cyberbullying discussions.
Expanded the boundaries of criminal liability for words alone, particularly in digital communication.
6. State v. Justin W. (California, 2012)
Background:
High school student posted a fake Facebook profile of a classmate filled with racial slurs and explicit images.
Charges:
Violation of California’s cyberbullying statute (Ed. Code § 48900(r)), criminal impersonation, and hate speech.
Outcome:
Convicted in juvenile court; sentenced to probation and counseling.
Significance:
Applied multiple overlapping statutes to prosecute cyberbullying.
Reinforced school and legal authority to act even when bullying happens off-campus.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Charge(s) | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Lori Drew | Federal/Missouri | CFAA (terms of service violation) | Conviction vacated | Led to legislative reforms |
| People v. Ciccarelli | New York | Aggravated harassment | Convicted | Used harassment laws for digital abuse |
| State v. Robert T. | Connecticut | Cyberbullying + disability harassment | Adjudicated delinquent | Applied hate crime laws to cyberbullying |
| State v. Herrick | New York | Stalking, impersonation | Convicted | Highlighted impersonation as cyberbullying |
| Commonwealth v. Carter | Massachusetts | Involuntary manslaughter | Convicted | Expanded liability for digital encouragement |
| State v. Justin W. | California | Cyberbullying, impersonation | Convicted (juvenile) | Combined education and criminal code violations |
🔍 Key Takeaways from Case Law
Intent matters: Courts focus on whether the perpetrator intended to cause emotional distress or harm.
Digital evidence is key: Texts, social media posts, and emails are central in proving intent and impact.
States are adapting: Most cyberbullying prosecutions occur under state laws, as federal laws are less directly applicable unless threats cross state lines.
Victim impact: Cases involving suicide, protected classes, or repeated conduct typically result in harsher outcomes.
Overlap with stalking, harassment, hate crimes, impersonation, and speech law.
🧩 Conclusion
Cyberbullying prosecutions in the U.S. rely heavily on state criminal codes that address harassment, stalking, threats, and impersonation. While the law continues to evolve, case law shows increasing judicial willingness to treat online abuse as serious criminal conduct, particularly when the bullying leads to psychological harm or suicide.
RELATED Blog
0 comments