Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[51]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[52]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[51]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-07 06:05:36.479
	1	+2017-01-07 06:05:36.0

Caselist.CitesClass[52]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,12 @@
	1	+Anti-cyberbullying laws key to prevent cyberbullying – squo solves and checks off campus behavior
	2	+Patchin 10. Justin W. Patchin, Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 09/28/10, "Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse?," Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-laws-and-school-policy-a-blessing-or-curse//AD
	3	+Many schools are now in a difficult position of having to respond to a mandate to have a cyberbullying policy, without much guidance from the state about the circumstances under which they can (or must) respond. When folks ask me if I think there needs to be a “cyberbullying law” I basically respond by saying “perhaps – but not the kind of law most legislators would propose.” I would look for a law to be more “prescriptive” than “proscriptive.” By that, I mean I would like to see specific guidance from states about *how* and *when* schools can take action in cyberbullying incidents. Many states have taken the easy way out by simply passing laws saying effectively “schools need to deal with this.” Not only have they stopped short in terms of providing specific instructions or even a framework from which schools can evaluate their role, but they have not provided any additional resources to address these issues. Some states are now requiring schools to educate students and staff about cyberbullying or online safety more generally, but have provided no funding to carry out such activities. Unfunded mandates have become cliché in education, and this is just another example. Moreover, school administrators are in a precarious position because they see many examples in the media where schools have been sued because they took action against a student when they shouldn’t have or they failed to take action when they were supposed to. Schools need help determining where the legal line is. Many states already have existing criminal and civil remedies to deal with cyberbullying. Extreme cases would fall under criminal harassment or stalking laws or a target could pursue civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation, to name a few. Bullying (whatever the form) that occurs at school is no doubt already subject to an existing bullying policy. To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources. But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court. School, technology, and privacy lawyers disagree about what should (or must) be in a policy. It’s no wonder many educators are simply throwing their hands up. We really like New Hampshire’s recently passed bullying law, even though like other efforts it demands a lot from schools without a corresponding increase in resources. This section is key: “Bullying or cyberbullying shall occur when an action or communication as defined in RSA 193-F:3: … (b) Occurs off of school property or outside of a school-sponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event.” This puts schools, students, and parents on notice that there are instances when schools can discipline students for their off campus behavior. It will take many years, though, before we will know if this law can be used as a model. Schools will need to pass policies based on the law; a school will then need to discipline a bully based on the new policy; then they will need to be sued; then the case will need to be appealed. Perhaps then the case will get to a significant enough court that it will matter. Hang on and see how it turns out. In the meantime, lobby your legislators to pass meaningful, prescriptive laws instead of laws that simply say “cyberbullying is wrong, now YOU do SOMETHING about it.” It’s election time, so I’m sure your local representative will be all ears…
	4	+The 1AC overturns anti-cyberbullying laws in the name of expanding free speech.
	5	+Hayward 13. John O. Hayward, Senior Lecturer in Law at Bentley Universityds, "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech," Netiquette and Online Ethics, Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 2013, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpointsandjsid=86b8d9990680ac70437ab043a7b61192andaction=2andcatId=anddocumentId=GALE7CEJ3010868216andu=nysl_we_bcsdandzid=e5792b8229fbb3d88a51bec521a1e8cf//AD
	6	+While forty-three states have anti-bullying statutes, only twenty-one prohibit cyber bullying, which usually is defined as "bullying" conducted by electronic means. Additionally, the laws can be grouped into prohibitions that explicitly include off-campus cyber bullying or implicitly include or exclude it. Typical legislative language is "immediately adjacent to school grounds," "directed at another student or students," "at a school activity," or "at school-sponsored activities or at a school-sanctioned event." The statutes also usually contain language prohibiting cyber bullying if it results in one or more of the following: (1) causes "substantial disruption" of the school environment or orderly operation of the school, (2) creates an "intimidating," "threatening" or "hostile" learning environment, (3) causes actual harm to a student or student's property or places a student in reasonable fear of harm to self or property, (4) interferes with a student's educational performance and benefits, (5) includes as a target school personnel or references "person" rather than "student," and (6) incites third parties to carry out bullying behavior. Five states prohibit cyber bullying if it is motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic or trait of a student. Presumably this protects gay and lesbian students and school personnel from criticism because of their sexual orientation but it could also shield obese, bulimic, short and tall students from disparagement due to their weight or height. While many applaud anti-cyber bullying legislation, some are concerned that it gives school officials unbridled authority that will be used to burnish their image, not protect bullying victims, or that it threatens student free speech. Furthermore, if their authority is unleashed beyond the school yard, it is essentially limitless. Thus no student, even in the privacy of their home, can write about controversial topics of concern to them without worrying that it may be "disruptive" or cause a "hostile environment" at school. In effect, students will be punished for off-campus speech based on the way people react to it at school. Many of the terms are so vague that they offer no guidance to distinguish permissible from impermissible speech. In this sense, they are akin to campus speech codes that courts invalidated in the 1990s for vagueness and overbreadth. Consequently, these laws don't simply "chill" student free speech, they plunge it into deep freeze. This viewpoint argues that for these reasons, some anti-cyber bullying laws violate the First Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional.
	7	+Cyberbullying is conducive to abuse and kills self worth – impedes the ability to get education, turns case
	8	+ETCB 16, End To Cyber Bullying, The End to Cyber Bullying (ETCB) Organization was founded in 2011 to raise global awareness on cyberbullying, and to mobilize youth, educators, parents, and others in taking efforts to end cyberbullying, “A Surprising Long-Term Effect of Cyberbullying, ETCB Organization, 2016, http://www.endcyberbullying.org/a-surprising-long-term-effect-of-cyberbullying///AD
	9	+If someone repeatedly tells the victim online that they is are worthless, useless, a waste of space or that they should kill themselves, soon the victim might – at least partially – begin to believe it. According to Psychcentral.com, signs that someone is experience low self-esteem include: • Self-critical or a negative opinion of themselves • Sensitivity to even constructive criticism • Fatigue, insomnia, headaches • Poor performance at school or work due to lack of trying or lethargy It is important for an individual to maintain a healthy self-esteem so that they can achieve in life. A cyberbullying victim may miss out on opportunities because the victim believes they is unworthy of achievement. It’s important to realize that these two effects go well beyond being in a bad mood and not liking something about oneself. Depression, Low Self-Esteem and Dating Abuse Research is inconclusive, but most would agree that people who are victimized in abusive dating relationships often choose those relationships because of their depression or low self-esteem. Findyouthinfo.gov states that past experience with stressful life events – cyberbullying, for example – can put someone at risk for entering an abusive dating relationship. This is especially true if the cyberabuse included abuse directed at a female victim’s sexuality, or lack thereof. Feelings of worthlessness and a negative outlook on life can throw a previously-cyberbullied victim into yet another abusive relationship. However, instead of faceless strangers and bullies dolling out abuse, it would be the victim’s significant other. Dating abuse can encompass many forms of abuse, including cyberabuse. According to Dosomething.com, other forms of abuse in dating relationships include: • Physical abuse – in the form of “hitting, punching, slapping, biting” and anything that causes physical pain. • Mental abuse – in the form of verbal putdowns and belittling. The abuser might call their victim names, “make threats, or accuse the other person of cheating.” • Emotional abuse – in the form of control over the victim’s “behavior, personality, and life.” • Sexual abuse – in the form of unwanted touching, pressuring the victim to have sex, or rape. It’s getting harder to track cyberbullying since most people make their online profiles and social networking pages private. Also, apps like Snapchat would allow cyberbullies to attack their victim and have the evidence wiped away within seconds. According to this tech expert, “Users are drawn to the impermanence of the site’s uploads and the anonymity that impermanence provides.” However impermanent the actual abusive message may be, the lasting effects of the abuse upon the psyche of the victim are anything but impermanent.
	10	+Disproportionately affects minorities – turns case.
	11	+Brandon 14. Mary Howlett-Brandon, Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University “CYBERBULLYING: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER, RACE, ETHNICITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS FROM THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY: STUDENT CRIME SUPPLEMENT, 2009”, 2014, http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4485andcontext=etd//AD
	12	+Other and mixed race students reported cyberbullying victimization at 4.2, 26 Black students at 1.9, and Hispanic students at 1.3. Whites, however, experienced 3.1 victimization by electronic technology. Wang et al. (2009) also reported the percentage of cyberbullying by race. Black students reported the highest level of cyberbullying activity at 10.9, Hispanic students at 9.6, and the category of students classified as other at 7.3. White students reported cyberbullying victimization at 6.7. The Kessel Schneider et al. (2012) study also addressed the cyberbullying behavior of students by race and ethnicity. The race/ethnic breakdown of the sample is as follows: 75.2 White, 12.3 mixed/other, 5.8 Hispanic, 3.9 Asian, and 2.8 Black. Kessel Schneider et al. (2012) found that 5.7 of the White students and 8.4 of the non-White students conveyed they had been cyberbullied during the previous 12 months.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-07 06:05:37.26

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lu Barraza

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lake Travis KE

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+46

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Shhah Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JF - DA - Cyber Bullying

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Churchill