Dr. Shaheen Shariff, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Integrated Studies in Education Faculty of Education, McGill

2. CYBER-BULLYING: KEY CONCERNS Supervision (on campus/off-campus) (Lord of Flies effect) Stakeholder obligations (school, parents, web-provider, police, law-makers) Shifting community/societal standards on acceptable cyber-behavior (ethical use of technology) Walls and borders erased, reflection time reduced No tangible feedback about consequences of actions on others Legal challenges and Policy Vacuum: Balancing safety, free expression, student privacy and equality = liability: parents suing schools

3. WHAT IS CYBER-BULLYING? Electronic social cruelty, prevalent among adolescents Allows participation by infinite audience Anonymous/invisible, insidious, covert = difficult to identify perpetrators Prevalently sexual, homophobic or racial. Bullying in “virtual school environment” impacts learning in physical school setting = HOSTILE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT Psychologically devastating for victims (health, drop-out, suicide) Socially detrimental for ALL students

4. INTERNATIONAL STATISTICS& INTERNET/CELL-PHONE USE (Shariff & Johnny, in press, Education & Law Journal, Vol.16.3 – Fall, 2006) Cyber-bullying is a growing concern in many nations. Australia global leader in SMS (text messaging) - 500 million messages each month as opposed to 10 million in 2000. 12% of children between 6 - 9 use text messaging at least once a day; 49% youth 10 – 14 and 80% aged 15 - 17 use SMS daily. 61% of Australian homes have computers;46% have internet access; 55% 15 year olds and 73% of 16 year olds own cell phones.

5. INTERNATIONAL STATISTICS& INTERNET/CELL-PHONE USE (Shariff & Johnny, in press, Education & Law Journal, Vol.16.3 – Fall, 2006) National Children’s Home and Tesco Mobile (2002)  16% of British children/adolescents cyber-bullied over the Internet; 1 in 4 (11 to 19 year olds) threatened via personal cell phone; 29% of those surveyed had not reported the cyber-bullying. 42% confided to a friend and 32% reported to parents. Caregivers’ knowledge of cyber-bullying disclosed as minimal. 56% of parents were not concerned about their children being bullied electronically Parents in denial as to the impact of such behavior. 19% believed such incidents were rare. Japanese children exposed to more technology – engaged in significantly less cyber-bullying (cultural?) 

6. AMERICAN RESEARCH FINDINGS 91% of kids 12 – 15 years old and 99% of teen 16-18 use internet (UCLA Internet Report, 2003). 1,566 (Gr.4 – 8) surveyed (i-SAFE, 2004): 57% victims of on-line hurtful or angry words by peers (13% quite often) 53% admitted to saying mean or hurtful things online (7% quite often) 35% threatened on-line (5% quite-often)

7. RECENT FINDINGS IN ALBERTA (Li, 2005) 177 Grade 7 Students Victims 23% had been bullied only by e-mail 35% in chat rooms only 41% cell phone text messaging and multiple sources 32% bullied by school-mates 11% by people outside their school 16% by multiple sources including school-mates 41% did not know identity of their perpetrators

8. CANADIANS WHO SUED David Knight: Rather than just some people, say 30 in a cafeteria, hearing them all yell insults at you, it’s up there for 6 billion people to see. Anyone with a computer can see it…And you can’t get away from it. It doesn’t go away when you come home from school. It made me feel even more trapped. Star-Wars Kid, Quebec: Filmed playing Star-Wars character, emailed and seen by hundreds of young people who added insults www.jedimaster.net – 15 million hits and 106 clones [SETTLED OUT OF COURT]

9. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORKS? Tort law (negligence, defamation, libel, misrepresentation, mental shock) - REMEDIAL – Parents may use. Plaintiffs must establish i) duty of care; 2) tangible harm; 3) foreseeable harm; 4) cause. Constitutional law (limits on free expression, student privacy, equality) – not remedial – takes longer – more expensive Human Rights law (especially harassment and anti-social environmental conditions) – REMEDIAL – parents may use Criminal law (perceived intent to harm – same as actual harm) – schools tend to go this route against perpetrators

10. CYBER-LIBEL: POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF PERPETRATORS Under Defamation laws: The making of derogatory statement(s) to a third party That discredits or impugns the reputation of a person Where the statement is not defensible on grounds that it is true, fair comment or protected on some ground of privilege. Libel is basically the written form of defamation Most internet defamation is libelous = CYBER-LIBEL

11. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION vs. REPUTATIONSCC: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) Although much has very properly been said and written about the importance of freedom of expression, little has been written about the importance of reputation. Yet, to most people, their good reputation is to be cherished above all. A good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. It is an attribute that must, just as much as freedom of expression, be protected by society’s law. Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of an individual . . . The reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former lustre. A democratic society therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited.

12. GENERAL U.S. AND BRITISH TORT RULINGS U.S. Courts want to avoid floodgates to litigation. No to negligence for egregious physical violence, educational malpractice. Paradoxically U.S. courts place high onus on schools to try and prevent suicide (psychological) through training of faculty and staff (Shariff, 2003, PhD dissertation). British Bullying is an educational and a health issue.

13. CRIMINAL LAW U.S.NOT CONSIDERED “TRUE THREAT” United States of America, Plaintiff v. Jake Baker (June 21, 1995) Baker posted a story to the newsgroup alt.sex.stories graphically describing the rape and torture of a university classmate. Also communicated (via email to a friend) his plans to actually carry it out. Students outraged and charged him with harassment. District Court threw out the claim.

14. CAN SCHOOLS RESTRICT STUDENT FREE SPEECH? – U.S. CASES – FIRST AMENDMENT 3 case established standards adhered to today: Tinker 2) Fraser 3) Hazelwood Tinker standard: “material or substantive disruption of learning” Fraser standard: “if it interferes with the educational mission” Hazelwood: If it is school property and students access it, school has a right to intervene (e.g. school website)

15. U.S. LANDMARK CASE ON HARASSMENTTURNING POINT Davis v. Munroe on sexual harassment of Grade 5 girl 5:4 decision – majority opinion that negative school environment reduced equal opportunities for LaShonda Davis to learn Dissent – Majority has “built a fence made of small sticks” that will open floodgates to litigation for all kinds of innocent teasing

16. SAFE ENVIRONMENT Canadian SCC ruled in Robichaud Institutions are responsible for providing safe environment even if sexual harassment by co-worker occurs outside workplace If victim has to face perpetrator (s) at work employers have an obligation to protect Court of Appeal in Jubran Created environment where dignity and full participation in school life denied - negative characteristics harassers associated with homosexuality attributed to Jubran – effect

17. CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE & QUEBEC CIVIL CODE Perceived intent to harm = mens rea (actual intent to harm) R. v. D.W.H. & K.P.D. Suicide of teenager who perceived harm based on verbal threat. D.W.H. found guilty of Criminal Harassment

18. THE CHILDREN’S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT (U.S.) CIPA – provisions are sound but in some cases creates a false sense of security (Willard, 2002) Mainly protects against access to pornography Constitutionality (restricting constitutionally protected library rights of library patrons, adults and minors to material on Internet) Does not apply in Canada

19. SCHOOL RESPONSES: WALL OF DEFENCE Well-intentioned but reactive (DiGuilio, 2001; Giroux, 2003) Myth: Schools should apply zero-tolerance (NO!). Unfair suspensions and expulsions Blanket policies ignore systemic discrimination (does not educate) Pro-active school responses more effective (Shariff, 2003-2005) Tacit condoning: Teachers pay less attention to verbal than physical (Lagerspetz et al, 2001; Glover et al, 1998) Popular adolescent discourse – line from friendly teasing to bullying

20. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE – Prepare teachers - pre-service and in-service professional development –recognize key concerns and complexities Critically assess own (adult) behavior on campus and in cyber-space Be aware of shifts in community standards of acceptable social discourse in physical school setting and cyber-space Address and respond to MESSAGE not MEDIUM Teach students out to critically assess their own discourses (Case, 2005 – TC2) ENCOURAGE FACE TO FACE COMMUNICATION (home & school)

21. DEVELOPING ETHICAL BEHAVIOR How do we help kids make their own moral judgments about ethical behavior (what is wrong and what is right in cyber-space)? I CAN’T SEE YOU, YOU CAN’T SEE ME!! Willard (2005) says its 2-fold: cognitive and emotional Recognition that an action has caused harm Social disapproval Negative consequences by higher authority

22. CONCLUSION SHAHEENEDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND USE (Willard, 2002-03) Defining an “educational purpose” (acceptable/unacceptable use of Web; high quality, non-entertainment research) Emphasize clear consequences but give students ownership of rules - brings responsibility – and monitor constantly (Lord of Flies Effect) Stakeholder Networks (web and cell-phone providers, government, parent groups, law enforcement, academics) – e.g. NetSafe in New Zealand Rethink curriculum delivery in a digital age from Kindergarten (Kincheloe, 2005 & Lankshear, 2005) Educational Website Portal (directs students to rich learning material and work with them to identify detrimental cites)

24. CONTACT AND REFERENCES shaheen.shariff@mcgill.ca Shariff, S. and Johnny, L. (in press). Cyber-Libel and Cyber-Bullying: Can Schools Protect Student Reputations and Free-Expression in Virtual Environments? Education & Law Journal. 16.3. Shariff, S. and Gouin, R. (in press). Cyber-Hierarchies: A New Arsenal of Weapons for Gendered Violence in Schools. In (Leach, F. and Mitchell, C. Eds., 2006). Combating gender violence in and around schools. Stoke on Trent. Trentham. Ch. 4 33-41. Shariff, S. (2005) Cyber-Dilemmas in the New Millennium: Balancing Free Expression and Student Safety in Cyber-Space. Special Issue: Schools and Courts: Competing Rights in the New Millennium. McGill Journal of Education. 40(3) 467-487. Shariff, S. and Strong-Wilson, T. (2005). Bullying and New Technologies. (Kincheloe, J. Ed.). Classroom Teaching: An Introduction. New York:NY. USA. David Lang Publishers. Ch.14, 219-240.

25. RESOURCES AND WEBSITES Kids Help Phone at www.kidshelpphone.ca or at 1 800 668-6868 http://www.bullying.org http://bullyonline.org http://cyberbully.org http://www.cyberbullying.ca http://www.stopcyberbullying.org http://internetsuperheroes.org http://www.netbullies.com

26. RESOURCES AND WEBSITES http://www.safekids.com/cellphone.htm http://www.safeteens.com http://www.media-awareness.ca http://csriu.org/ http://www.kidsonline.org http://bbc.co.uk/schools http://disney.co.com/cybersafety/index.html http://www.talk-helps.com FOR MORE WEB-LINKS AND RESOURCES CONTACT shaheen.shariff@mcgill.ca

27. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION