Most children in the United States have been victims of cyberbullying or have been part of it in some way, either as victims or perpetrators. In fact, research suggests that half of all students received hurtful comments or messages online. In addition, 10% to 20% of them are regularly victims of cyberbullying. In 2016, a new civil law called “embarrassing public disclosure of private facts” was recognized by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. It was the result of a case in which a woman sued a former romantic partner for sharing a sexually explicit video she sent him without his permission. The offence is defined as follows: “a person who makes public a matter concerning the privacy of another is liable to the other for the violation of the privacy of the other if the published case or act of publication (a) would be very offensive to a reasonable person and (b) is not of legitimate interest to the public”. [1] As a result, cyberbullying laws vary widely, with some states having much stricter requirements than others. For example, New York`s Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) states that school districts must have the following policies and procedures in place. For example, Fire has previously noted that North Carolina`s Cyberbullying Act is part of a worrying trend of online language regulations that don`t properly define cyberbullying — a term that, unlike “hostile environmental nuisance,” doesn`t have a consistent legal definition. While the law was drafted with the laudable intention of protecting children from online harassment, it includes protected freedom of expression. This means, as Creeley warned, that it “can be used by administrators to censor unwanted language.” In particular, the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker is that schools may restrict students` language that “materially and significantly impairs the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” and the standard can be met by “demonstrating a disturbance or showing that the speech has led to a reasonable prognosis by the school administration of significant disturbances.” Fifth Circuit, in its bench decision in Bell, found that the seriousness of the bullying behaviour reflected in the recording texts caused both actual disruption and led to a reasonable prognosis of significant disruption at the time of posting on social media. The written statement in the case, including texts that the court considers cyberbullying, is available from www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C12/12-60264-CV2.pdf.

There have been a number of high-profile cases of cyberbullying in the news where criminals have been prosecuted. Perhaps the most important of these cases involves a 17-year-old Massachusetts teenager who was convicted of manslaughter for texting her 18-year-old boyfriend asking him to pursue his suicide plan. Content-based laws must withstand rigorous scrutiny, the highest constitutional standard. A rigorous review is a two-pronged analysis that examines whether (1) the regulation promotes an overriding interest of the state and (2) the means of achieving the state interest are closely tailored. The state Supreme Court cites Reed v. The City of Gilbert (2015) noted that cyberbullying law is content-based because it “defines regulated language by [its] particular purpose.” However, the state Supreme Court found that the law was not narrowly suited to “serve the S]tate`s presumed interest in protecting children from harm caused by online bullying.” On the contrary, it unconstitutionally prohibits “a wide range of online speech,” including First Amendment-protected speech. Meanwhile, Ohio`s cyberbullying legislation, called the Jessica Logan Act, is also extensive. The law was introduced after Logan was bullied, harassed and intimidated by her peers when a nude photo of her circulated in her high school. Logan committed suicide shortly after the photo was distributed to her school. In fact, many cases of cyberbullying are prosecuted as harassment. As a result, some of the cases will end up in civilian court, while others could warrant criminal charges and prosecution for hate crimes, imitation, harassment and violations under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In 2017, the parents of Mallory Grossman, 12, filed a lawsuit against their daughter`s Rockaway Township School District for gross negligence.

The parents said they had repeatedly informed school officials of the texts, Snapchat and bullying on Instagram. They also considered prosecuting the parents of peers who were victims of cyberbullying. In cases of defamation, the target can take legal action against the person making the statement. If the lawsuit is successful, the person making the statement must pay damages (money) to the target. In the past, the hands of a school district were tied when it came to bullying. But now, federal jurisprudence allows schools to discipline students for their off-campus behavior, which significantly disrupts the school`s academic environment. As a result, many states have made changes to their laws that provide schools with greater opportunities to participate in ending cyberbullying. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression.

However, this right is “guaranteed only to the reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” and must be weighed against § 7 in the case of cyberbullying. The latter article guarantees “the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. In general, section 2 of the Charter has not been accepted as a defence in civil or criminal intimidation cases. Cyberbullying poses First Amendment problems because bylaws often criminalize speech, and some terms in some laws and regulations may be too broad or vague.