This post is the second of a three-part discussion on the nature of, and relationship between, cyber-bullies, griefers and the whole business of harassment.
Because the terms “cyber-bully” and “griefer” are often tossed around as if there’s no difference, I began the first part of our discussion by clarifying the term “griefer,” and explaining when and under which circumstances the two terms are meaningfully distinguished. That in mind, I will begin this section with a clarification of the term “cyber-bully.”
The Cyber-bully
Cyber-bullies operate outside the context of games, be they online or off. Cyberbullying can include cruel jokes, malicious gossip, embarrassing information or photographs, and/ or sites set up to target a specific child or teacher. It can involve someone your child knows, maybe or a complete stranger. Cyber bullying is often limited to online insults about someone’s physical appearance, friends, clothing, or gender.
But, some cyber bullies are more creative; they can be completely horrid, emotionally damaging but mostly, just plain cowardly. Cyber bullying is the new way that bullies identify their victims. It can involve tricking someone into offering personal or potentially humiliating information and then emailing it to other people online. Perpetrators use instant-messaging (IM), chat rooms, and websites to threaten, humiliate, and belittle their victims.
Cyberbullying is the same as relational bullying — it takes place online, which for today’s teens, is the most social of social spaces. Instead of rumor being whispered in the bathrooms at school, it now is copied, pasted and forwarded.
Out of respect for all involved, the following extended quote was copied in whole from the commentary of a recent YouTube video entitled, “Megan Meier’s Death Linked to Friend’s CYBER-BULLY Parents!”
Should the adults involved in deceiving Megan, Lori and Curt Drew, be held accountable for their actions? The Drews have been besieged with negative publicity, and Meier’s death prompted her hometown of Dardenne Prairie to adopt a law engaging in Internet harassment a misdemeanor. In a bizzare twist the law’s first use could be to prevent possible harassment against the Drews! Megan Meier died believing that somewhere in this world lived a boy named Josh Evans who hated her.
The final message Megan Meier saw on her MySpace account: “Everybody in O’Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”
On Oct. 16, 2006, Ron and Tina Meier discovered Megan had tied a cloth belt around a support beam in her closet and hanged herself. Megan died the following day. Six weeks after Megan’s death her parents were informed that Megan was the victim of a cruel hoax on MySpace. The perpetrators were the parents of Megan’s one time friend.
The Drews had concocted Josh Evans to get back at Megan for quarreling with their daughter. After Megan’s death, they even asked Megan’s parents if they could store their foosball table in Megan’s parent’s garage. Upon learning the details of what had happened to their daughter and who was behind it, Megan’s father destroyed the, “alleged” hoaxers Curt and Lori Drew’s, foosball table.
Because Ms. Drew had taken Megan on family vacations, she knew the girl had been prescribed antidepression medication, Ms. Meier said. She also knew that Megan had a MySpace page. Ms. Drew had told a girl across the street about the hoax, said the girl’s mother, who requested anonymity to protect her daughter, a minor.
“Lori laughed about it,” the mother said, adding that Ms. Drew and Ms. Drew’s daughter “said they were going to mess with Megan.” Over the last year the Drew’s have had threatening phone calls, a brick through the window,a lawn job and paintball attacks. This Wednesday [late November, 2007], officials in Megan Meier’s city vote on whether to make online harassment a local crime.
The proposed ordinance would make online harassment a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail. Or, the telecommunications harassment law. Amended in 2005, the law prohibits people from anonymously using the Internet with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.
- aliceangel17
You can read more about this situation on this website; relatedly, you can join a Google group devoted to exposing online predators and cyber-paths. In the meantime, it’s important to consider that those who engage in cyber-bullying are probably not thinking about their fellow classmates, and probably believe they are smart enough to not get caught because of their presumed “invisibility.” From what we’ve read of Lori Drew (above), this was probably not so in her case (far from it) — but, either way you look at it, cyber-bullying is still a repeated attack (i.e., a harassment) on others, and chances are, if someone is being cyber bullied, they are probably also being physically bullied at school; as, again, we found with Megan Meier.
Long story short: CYBER-PATHS NEED TO BE VERY SURE WHAT THEY ARE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF! The truth is a 100% solid defense to defamation of character or libel. Accusing someone of defamation or libel — when they are telling the truth — however, is actionable.
While we are reticent to call “cyber-bullying” a crime or in any other way, to treat children as adults — we cannot hold them as innocent or otherwise ignore whatever damages they might inflict on innocent others, damages which in certain cases have resulted in suicide.
For this reason, we look to the law to pick up on how it has come to understand such behaviors, where it draws important distinctions, what it requires in terms of responsibilities, and what it provides by way of civil remedies. The final section of our discussion will take up the question of where cyber bullying becomes harassment.
Reading Is Learning At Random Info Dot Net
