Changes for page La Canada Zhao Neg
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:37
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[67]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-16 05:04:46. 4211 +2017-01-16 05:04:46.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[68]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +Counterplan Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected online speech, except for posting information on the Internet intended to inflict psychological distress toward a particular person through repeated insult. 2 +Cyberbullying in college includes online sexual harassment, outing, and insults that contribute to depression, substance abuse, and suicide 3 +Selkie and Moreno 16 Ellen Selkie (certified psychiatrist and pediatric doctor), and Megan Moreno, "Cyberbullying and College Students: What Can Be Done?," Psychiatric Times, 4/28/2016 AZ 4 +Cyberbullying among college students may represent a continuation of behaviors from middle and high school but in new contexts. Aggressors may use more subtle attacks that are meant to exclude or leverage power over others rather than being overtly aggressive. Prominent components of cyberbullying in college can include electronic criticisms of identity, sexual harassment, and “outing” of private information such as sexual orientation or health diagnoses without consent (eg, sexually transmitted infections, psychiatric conditions). These behaviors are considered in the context of a spectrum of aggressive behaviors that are typical concerns on college campuses, such as intimate partner violence and physical and sexual assault. In addition, the alarming issue of students bullying faculty members has been anecdotally described.1 Several campuses have debated banning the location-based, anonymous app Yik Yak following postings of abusive content about faculty and students. College students are an important population on which to focus regarding cyberbullying because older adolescence can be formative for habits that persist into young adulthood. Promotion of open dialogue and free speech is a hallmark of the college experience; however, heated online debates have the potential to devolve into personal attacks and harassment. Bullying behaviors that attack college students’ identities may have a considerable impact, given that the undergraduate years are critical for adult identity formation. Psychiatric correlates of cyberbullying The most concerning potential negative consequence of cyberbullying is suicide, which has been reported in mainstream media but not empirically studied in college students. One notable example is that of Tyler Clementi, a young man who died of suicide following the spread of derogatory content regarding his sexuality through social media by his college roommate.2 There is no current research published about actual suicide attempts or completion among college students involved in cyberbullying. A few studies have examined the negative health sequelae of cyberbullying among college students. In a study of college students who were members of fraternities or sororities, behavioral characteristics of those involved in cyberbullying included callous, unemotional traits (reflective of sociopathy).3 Moreover, both perpetrators and victims had increased depressive symptoms and fewer social skills. Two other studies suggest increased depression, anxiety, and suicidality in victims of cyberbullying and depression and alcohol abuse in perpetrators.4,5 Among younger adolescents, cyberbullying has been associated with suicidality, depression, substance abuse, somatic symptoms, and school problems.6 Reactions to cyberbullying can include feelings of depression and suicidality or feelings that may be less extreme, such as transient distress, embarrassment, and sadness.7 In addition, bullying in college may be either electronic or face to face. Regardless, it is important to consider potential negative sequelae of cyberbullying because depression and alcohol use are already among the most common and consequential health concerns for college students.8 Given the high prevalence of depression and alcohol abuse in this population, examination of risk factors is crucial for prevention of morbidity and mortality. 5 +Cyberbullying is constitutionally protected speech 6 +Miller and Zoeller 16 Vanessa Miller and Mary Zoeller, "Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment," Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 6/15/2016 AZ 7 +But last week, the state’s highest court agreed with Bishop and reversed the appellate court, finding that the statute indeed “violates the First Amendment” because it regulates speech rather than conduct. Content-based statutes must withstand strict scrutiny, the most rigorous constitutional standard. Strict scrutiny is a two-pronged analysis inquiring whether (1) the regulation furthers a compelling state interest and (2) the means to accomplish the state interest are narrowly tailored. The state Supreme Court, quoting Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), found the cyberbullying statute is content-based because it “defines regulated speech by its particular subject matter.” However, the state Supreme Court found the statute was not narrowly tailored to “serve the state’s asserted interest in protecting children from the harms resulting from online bullying.” Rather, it unconstitutionally “prohibits a wide range of online speech,” including speech protected by the First Amendment. FIRE has previously noted that North Carolina’s cyberbullying statute is part of a worrying trend of online speech regulations that fail to properly define cyberbullying—a term that, unlike “hostile environment harassment,” does not have a consistent legal definition. While the statute may have been drafted with the laudable intent to protect children from online harassment, it encompasses protected speech. That means, as Creeley cautioned, it “can be used by administrators to censor unwanted speech.” The Supreme Court of North Carolina got it right when it struck down the cyberbullying statute as unconstitutional. And states seeking to enact their own cyberbullying laws should emulate the narrow, speech-protective standard for student-on-student harassment set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). In Davis, the nation’s highest court defined student-on-student harassment as behavior that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” Adopting this definition would ensure the protection of First Amendment rights, while simultaneously insulating children from the harms of online bullying. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-16 05:04:47.493 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +BOvering, Peiris, Zhou - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Arcadia JC - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +30 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Doubles - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Cyberbullying - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake