School Cyber Harassment Prosecutions
Legal Framework
Cyber harassment (or cyberbullying) in schools involves the use of electronic communication to harass, threaten, or intimidate students.
Laws addressing cyber harassment include:
State anti-bullying statutes (vary widely).
Federal statutes such as:
Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 — often protects platforms, but not perpetrators.
Interstate harassment laws (18 U.S.C. § 875(c) — threats via interstate communication).
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in some contexts.
Schools also have disciplinary policies aligned with Title IX if harassment is sexual or discriminatory.
Prosecution can be at state or federal levels depending on the nature of the conduct.
Notable Cases
1. United States v. Lori Drew (2008)
Facts:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace profile to cyberbully a teenage girl, who later died by suicide.
Legal Issues:
Drew was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for violating MySpace’s terms of service.
The case questioned whether violating website terms could lead to criminal liability.
Decision:
The jury convicted Drew of misdemeanor CFAA violations, but the conviction was overturned on appeal because CFAA was not designed to police such conduct.
Significance:
Highlighted challenges in prosecuting cyber harassment under federal hacking laws and raised awareness of cyberbullying consequences.
2. United States v. Arditte (11th Cir., 2016)
Facts:
Arditte sent threatening messages via social media to a classmate, making repeated harassing and threatening comments.
Legal Issues:
Application of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (interstate communications threatening harm).
Whether messages constituted a "true threat."
Decision:
Conviction was upheld because the threats were credible and caused fear.
Significance:
Confirmed federal law can be applied to school cyber harassment involving credible threats crossing state lines.
3. Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District (E.D. Ark., 2016)
Facts:
Student Doe was harassed online by classmates; the school was sued for failing to take adequate action.
Legal Issues:
School’s responsibility under Title IX to address off-campus cyber harassment.
Whether the school’s inaction violated Doe’s rights.
Decision:
Court held schools may be liable if they are deliberately indifferent to known harassment that creates a hostile environment.
Significance:
Clarified school obligations to respond to cyber harassment affecting students’ educational environment.
4. People v. Marquan M. (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
Facts:
Marquan M. was convicted under a New York anti-cyberbullying statute for creating a website to harass classmates.
Legal Issues:
Whether the anti-cyberbullying law was overly broad or infringed on free speech rights.
Decision:
The Court struck down portions of the law as unconstitutional for overbreadth but upheld prohibitions on targeted harassment.
Significance:
Balanced free speech with protection from cyber harassment in schools.
5. State v. Layshock (Pennsylvania, 2010)
Facts:
A high school student created a fake profile of a principal on social media, mocking him.
Legal Issues:
Whether the student's off-campus speech could be punished by the school.
Scope of school authority over cyberharassment.
Decision:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the school could discipline the student because the speech caused a substantial disruption at school.
Significance:
Set precedent on school discipline authority over off-campus cyber speech with significant school impact.
6. J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District (3rd Cir., 2003)
Facts:
A student created a website mocking another student’s sexual orientation.
Legal Issues:
Whether the school could discipline off-campus cyber harassment.
Free speech versus harassment.
Decision:
Court upheld school’s discipline, noting the speech was targeted and disruptive.
Significance:
One of the early cases affirming school authority to act against off-campus cyber harassment.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Federal Threat Laws Apply | Credible threats sent electronically across state lines can be prosecuted federally. |
| School Responsibility | Under Title IX, schools must respond to harassment that creates a hostile educational environment. |
| Off-Campus Speech Regulation | Schools may regulate off-campus cyber harassment if it causes substantial disruption. |
| Free Speech Limits | Cyber harassment laws must balance preventing harm with First Amendment protections. |
| Criminal vs. Civil | Cyber harassment can lead to criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits against schools or perpetrators. |
Conclusion
School cyber harassment prosecutions combine complex issues of free speech, school authority, and criminal law. Federal and state courts have worked to balance student rights with the need to protect victims from serious harassment, especially when it crosses state lines or threatens safety. Cases like Lori Drew demonstrate the difficulty of using existing laws designed for other purposes, leading to evolving legislation specifically addressing cyberbullying.
RELATED Blog
comments