Student Code Of Conduct And Employee Handbook

A young boy was once sitting on his computer when he saw an email from one of his peers. He opened the email, and soon enough realized he was being bullied. However, the young boy let the cyber-bullying get out of control. His parents told the school about it, but there was nothing they could do. The boy had to go to a new school where he wouldn’t be bullied. There are many problems like this that get out of hand, so much that the school can do nothing to help. Many people blame the school for not helping, when there is nothing they can do about it. Therefore, schools do not have the responsibility to respond to and protect students from the challenge of cyber-bullying, even if it’s off campus.

There is an increase in cyberbullying due to technology, the school has the right to protect their students, and it affects how teachers work. Numerous individuals trust that punishing students for what they say outside of school goes against the First Amendment, yet in the event that it disturbs the wellbeing of the student body, something should be done. At the point when students are included with cyberbullying, it unquestionably goes past the school's doors and influences not only the student, but the general population around

The purposes of schools include protecting and educating its students. Therefore, naturally, when a student is cyberbullying someone else, the school seeks to intervene. However, many argue that a school’s intervention of its students’ online speech is in violation of their First Amendment rights. Should schools be allowed to limit students’ online speech? That is, should schools be allowed to punish the things its students post online, even if they are done outside of school, and from their personal devices? The answer is clearly yes. From the concept, to the precedence, to the data, to a letter from the US Department of Education, evidences everywhere supports limiting students’

“Several states across the United States have been continuously adding cyberbullying on top of harassment laws that have already been in place” (National Conference of State Legislatures). The crackdown on cyberbullying has become a big priority for many lawmakers nationwide. New laws will give power to school officials and prosecutors to make decisions based on the severity of the situation. A school official will have the ability to suspend or expel the bully, while a prosecutor will have the ability to fine the bully and/or up to one year of imprisonment. In the state of Maryland as of October 1, 2013, ‘Grace’s Law’, was passed. This law states that, “It prohibits a person from using an “interactive computer service to maliciously engage in a course of conduct that inflicts serious emotional distress on a minor or places a minor in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Violators who are guilty of a misdemeanor are punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and/or $500 maximum fine” (General Assembly of Maryland). ‘Grace’s Law’ was proposed after 15 year old Grace McComas committed suicide in April of 2012, after relentlessly being cyber bullied over Twitter, Facebook, and Email. Seeing cyberbullying laws being passed by states makes it more comforting for victims of cyberbullying because he/she knows that their bully will one day be held liable for their vile behaviors.

In the past, bullies were bigger children who constatntly picked on the smaller and weaker children. Bullies normally teased the children they victimized. If they got away with it, bullies also demended food and money from their victims. Sometimes, for the few unlucky ones, the bullies got physical with them. When bullyng occurred, it typically happened on school’s premises. Once the children who are being bullied got home, they were safe from the abuse. As scoiety evolve into the world of technology so has bullying. With cyberbulllying, children are never safe from the continous torture of being bullied. Yet, some states do not define cyberbullying as a form of bullying in their anti-bullying laws. Every state has a diverse definition of bullying. While some states specify physical altercation or badgering as a form of bullying, others define it as merely aggravating behavior (Maggie Clark 2). With no definite definition and no sole constitutional course of action, adults are bullie at work as well. They can only fit the crime to a punishment (Allison Ballard 3). If there is a single definition which covers all aspects of bullying, in any type of environment,, adults and children will have the protection they need.

On the issue of whether or not schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech, I firmly believe that they shouldn’t. Doing so directly infringes upon the student’s first amendment rights to the freedom of speech, and for what? Numerous surveys have shown that cyberbullying isn’t a huge problem. Further, one document affirms the conclusion that cyberbullying is just another phase in the long-running evolution of bullying. With this essay, I aim to convince you that schools should not limit their students’ online speech, using my vast knowledge as well as cold hard facts.

Cyberbullying has become a new and growing problem within today’s society (Hanel, Trolley 33). On May 9th, 2007, the Minnesota State Legislature first amended the original bullying law from 2005 in attempt to strengthening it (Minnesota State Legislature, “Approved 2005”, “Amended 2007”). As stated on a report by the United States Department of Education, Minnesota has one of the weakest bullying laws in the nation (United States Department of Education, “Analysis”). Bully Police graded Minnesota’s law as a C-, the lowest grade of all bullying laws currently regulated in the U.S. (Weber, “MPR News Investigation”; Bully Police, “Minnesota 2007”).

Cyberbullying is defined as, ¨...bullying that takes place using electronic technology¨ by stopbullying.gov. Recently, schools have been taking actions to punish students for what they do or say online. There have been many debates and trails to figure out whether or not schools should have the power to limit and punish students’ speech online. The Supreme Court ruled that if online speech is disruptive, schools can punish students. School districts should not have the power to limit online speech because online speech does not affect most students and teachers, is not very disruptive, and free speech is a precious right.

Students do not always realize that their free speech can go against certain limits that the Supreme Court has issued on this freedom. The US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights suggests that harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a students' ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by the school. (Doc. G) In consonance with this, it is the school's responsibility to address harassment incidents to protect students' privacy rights. Allowing full access to the first amendment in schools can often result in the violation of the fourth amendment by infringing privacy rights. There are many forms of harassment that can violate students' civil rights. According to the same department, harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the civil rights laws that the OCR enforces. (Doc. G) Cyberbullying often falls into these categories which are all violations of civil rights, and many schools may not have proper standards for this violation. It is the school's responsibility to protect the civil rights of students, teachers, and administrators, so they must take a stand against discrimination, including online speech. Not only does cyberbullying contravene with civil rights, it also causes emotional

This paper addresses a situation in which a student notified this author that she was being subjected to bullying through another classmate’s Facebook page. A discussion of steps required by Oregon’s statutes, the Lake Oswego School District 's board policies and the student handbook, will provide a basis for examining any First Amendment arguments that the bullying has raised, with a discussion of the author 's First Amendment responses consistent with applicable Supreme Court cases.

Schools and the public are wasting time and resources on the over-exaggerated issue of cyberbullying. Today, schools are wasting much of their time worrying about cyberbullying and in popular media it’s mentioned too much. Schools should not be allowed to limit online speech. It’s not needed since most students haven’t been cyberbullied, cyberbullying hasn’t been proven to be very disruptive and online gossip is not common.

Cyberbullying is a very controversial topic these days, some may think that to prevent this school should limit students’ speech, others argue that it prevents students right to learn.

“We have freedom of speech, but you got to watch what you say” said the comedian Tracy Morgan. And he was correct. In this modern world today, numerous students abuse the First Amendment. Over the media, students are posting comments, videos, stories, etc. about other students and teachers. These students are cyberbullies. The schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech because cyber bullying privacy and dignity are important, it hurts feelings, and affects the school.

Students can send cruel comments through texts and emails instead of doing it in person. A whole group of students can send anonymous messages and slander through Facebook or YouTube. The home address or cell phone number of the victim can be posted online. Videos and pictures of an individual during a vulnerable or intimate time in their life can be used on the internet to continue their humiliation for years to come. Victims are no longer safe in their own home because their bullies can follow them online. In addition, teachers cannot witness these online altercations like they could with altercations in a classroom. Being unable to track student behavior online, instructors could no longer report activity unless it occurred in their presence or they are notified by a student. School boards cannot respond to these internet attacks with their sweeping policies because they did not apply to off campus situations. Federal laws provided little relief. “In January 2006, the United States made it a federal crime to harass people on the internet.—but the law applied only to people over the age of eighteen.”(Klein 119-120) Cyber-bullies in secondary school could commit acts of aggression without worries of repercussion. If caught, online abuser could evoke their first amendment rights, which defendsfreedom of speech. No one willing to stop these attackers would know what was happening until it was too late for the

The playground bully is a classic figure in the life of children. Shoving, pushing, pinching, name-calling, and dirt-throwing are some of its favorite pastimes. In the modern world, however, bullying is moving to another arena, one much more sophisticated and secretive than the jungle gym. Bullying that takes place online, or cyberbullying, is a growing area of concern among the younger generations. Recent events have thrown cyberbullying, rather unceremoniously, into the spotlight. After being relentlessly tormented online for ten months, Rebecca Sedwick, a twelve-year-old girl from Florida, committed suicide by jumping from the roof of a defunct concrete plant on September 10, 2013. Two teenage girls, Katelyn Roman and Guadalupe Shaw,