Should Big Brother save us from

the Cyberbully?

Post-Deliberation Policy Recommendations

OVERVIEW
Taking into consideration the thoughts and opinions of the Should
Big Brother save us from the Cyberbully deliberation audience, this
document summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of three
different proposals to combat cyberbullying, and proposes policy
solutions to reduce the online harassment of students.

Introduction

3-5

The Legal System

5-7

Education

7-9

Monitoring

10-12

Conclusion

12-13

Introduction
Cyberbullying is a new online version of the commonly known
issue of bullying that is generally provoked from interactions that
have emerged from people's growing social presence online. It is
something that needs to be addressed as each situation can cause
major personal conflicts between individuals in an environment that
does not account for this aggressive and intrusive behavior. It should
be addressed in a manner that is comprehensive, effective, and
maintains the rights of individuals during their online interactions.
As a mode of civic engagement, this deliberation was meant to
promote discussion on cyberbullying as a relevant and persistent
issue. The preliminary discussion in the deliberation was able to
demonstrate that cyberbullying should be the publics concern
because for many individuals, cyberbullying circulates through their
social media on a daily basis. All participants in attendance agreed
that cyberbullying has impacted their lives in some way or that they
have actually seen cyberbullying occur online at some point. They
also all agreed that cyberbullying is almost always underestimated as
a problem in our lives and should be dealt with in a comprehensive
manner.
As the moderators of this deliberation, we were compelled to
chose this topic because while bullying is a part of many childrens
social lives growing up, cyberbullying is a twisted version of bullying
that will not resolve itself with time, and that can potentially have
negative impacts on individuals for years to come. Cyberbullying
may become a problem for some individuals in college and possibly
well into adulthood. This means that cyberbullying is not just an
issue that permeates in schools and minors, but has an effect across a
vast age range. However, during the framing of the issue of
cyberbullying, it was generally agreed that while cyberbullying can
and does occur over a vast spectrum of ages, it is most prevalent in
the lives of middle school and high school students because it is
most likely to occur in those social settings. One member of the
discussion was actually in middle school, which provided an
accurate perspective from that age range.

We presented a definition of cyberbullying in this deliberation

to help facilitate a better discussion that was focused on the topic
and potential solutions while avoiding discussion over the specific
definition of cyberbullying. We defined it as, the use of electronic
communication to bully a peer (in this case students), usually
anonymously. This bullying can potentially range from harassment,
to threats, to humiliation, or even to impersonation. Also, we felt it
was important to note in our deliberation that while harassment,
threats, humiliation, or impersonation can occur regardless of age,
our focus would be between student peers. This definition laid the
groundwork for the deliberation so the participants could be
involved in a higher level of discussion. To be specific, this
deliberation promoted productive discussion about three potential
solutions for cyberbullying. These solutions included using the legal
system, a proactive anti-cyberbullying education program, or a
monitoring system to maintain user safety on social medias.
Our analysis of cyberbullying itself produced interesting trends
in the group opinion, both on the specific topic of cyberbullying and
how we should deal with it. We first established that social media
itself is not bad, but rather that it is human nature that is the
primary cause of cyberbullying and bullying in general. However,
social media does play a prominent role in cyberbullying and should
be included in the discussion and eventual solution. The participants
and moderators understood that there is a distinction between
physical bullying and cyberbullying. This likely comes from the
anonymity of cyberbullying, which is almost a luxury to the bully,
with little to no immediate repercussions for the bully.
One major consensus was that cyberbullying will never be
solved completely, no matter how it is approached. The feasibility,
financial burdens, efficiency, and implications of personal rights
were all major factors when considering potential solutions to
cyberbullying. While no full consensus was reached, the discussion
flowed in such a way that showed that proactive education solution
was the favored solution. It was favored because of its feasibility and
the fact that it did not infringe upon the personal rights of the
individual.

Considering the deliberation in full, multiple different policy

changes were brought up as potential alternatives or modified
versions of the original solution ideas presented. This created varied
discussion that will allow us to consider a multifaceted approach to
dealing with cyberbullying as a society. This potential solution will
hopefully be able to maintain the primary goals of our deliberation
by significantly reducing the amount of cyberbullying currently
occurring online across all social media platforms, while
simultaneously keeping personal liberties intact.

The Legal System

The first approach we proposed to the participants at the
deliberation for addressing cyber bullying was by utilizing the legal
system. The legal system provides an institutionalized method of
addressing the cyberbullies while likewise bringing some form of
justice for the victims. Thus, there are three ways the legal system
can be administered, potentially putting an end to cyberbullying.
The first method is by using the criminal justice system. By
utilizing this technique those accused of cyberbullying could
potentially face fines and jail time as a result of their actions.
Currently, this approach is used in 12 states, and could be beneficial
by ultimately deterring students from becoming bullies. However,
some argue that this approach is too extreme, and that students will
undergo more harm, rather than learning from their mistakes. The
second method to using the legal system is by nationalizing the issue
through Congress. Currently, many bullying laws, also known as
harassment, are housed in multiple pieces of legislation such as the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX,
and more. In order to unite these documents, a single piece of
legislation about bullying in general could be proposed with a subsection discussing cyber bullying. As a result of creating this
legislation, bullying will be brought to national attention potentially

fostering more of a dialogue about the implications cyber bullying

has on students of all ages. Yet, in order to create this legislation
time, energy, and resources are heavily needed. Because of this,
Members of Congress are less likely to take up this piece of
legislation, since it would have to pass through the House of
Representatives, the Senate, and signed by the President of the
United States. Therefore, the final proposal that can be used within
the legal system is by creating state legislature stating that schools
have an obligation to fully investigate all reported incidents of cyber
bullying both on and off campus. Through this method states and
schools are taking proper measures to ensure that students are not in
harms way, and can enjoy a safe learning environment. Due to the
fact that schools are in charge of conducting the investigations, some
schools may not fullying investigate reports to the best of their
abilities. Because of this, some reports may go unnoticed leaving
students at risk.
After proposing these three topics to the participants of the
deliberation, we, as a group, discussed the implications that each
component would have regarding cyberbullying. The first topic,
using the criminal justice system, was almost unanimously
considered too drastic of a move. Most participants felt perturbed by
the fact that students could end up in jail, potentially having this one
incident ruin the rest of their life by making it difficult for students
to get certain jobs in the future. Thus, while the discussion about the
criminal justice system was meaningful, it moved a lot quicker since
almost everyone disagreed against this method. The second method,
creating national legislation, was also quickly decided upon by the
group that it was not the best method of combating cyberbullying.
For example, some participants in the discussion stated that while
this legislation would be beneficial in the long run, it was an
unrealistic goal that would be more of a gesture rather than a
solution. Therefore, the group decided that national legislation was
not an appropriate method to use for cyberbullying. The final
method, creating state legislation, was more ambiguous than the
other two proposals for utilizing the legal system. Some participants
agreed with this method because it is a more realistic goal in that the
school is mandated to take to charge in leading the investigations.

Interestingly, the conversation around this topic focused more on

whether or not schools should be investigating off campus instead.
While most participants agreed that it was not the school's duty to be
involved with student affairs off campus property, there were a few
who defended the idea that it would assist in protecting the security
of students. Therefore, there was no clear definition on whether or
not the participants supported or negated this position, however the
group tended to lean towards the side of not implementing this
strategy.
Overall, through the rich conversation that took place during
this first part of the deliberation, the participants were not enthused
about the idea of embracing any aspect of the legal system. This
conclusion was even clearer when looking over the post-deliberation
questions, since most participants stated firmly that the legal system
was not the solution for countering cyberbullying in the long run.

Education
Our second approach to ending online bullying and
harassment was the design and implementation of an educational
system. A large focus of the program will be on providing useful
resources to the victims of cyberbullying, such as where to report
instances of bullying and reminding the victim that they are not to
blame and provide resources if they are suffering from bullying. The
other key focus of the educational program will be several interactive
quizzes. After reading about what constitutes cyberbullying, the user
will be provided scenarios and then be asked to determine whether
or not cyberbullying occurred.
The program is largely modeled after Penn States preexisting
SAFE and AWARE programs used to combat sexual violence and
alcohol abuse, respectively. In addition to having a similar format as
the other programs, it will also be mandatory for incoming freshman
at Penn State. In the future, if the program proves to be creating a

safer Internet environment at Penn State, a hope is that the program

can be made available to local high schools and middle school,
because of the increasing prevalence of younger students with social
media accounts.
Our program exemplifies certain values that are essential to
civic life, especially the values of equality, compassion, and
education. Every incoming student is equally assigned this program
for completion before entering the university. Our program will have
a lot to do with caring for the victim and getting them the help they
need, which is related to the value of helping others. And finally,
education is something that the American culture as a whole values,
with compulsory 13 years of public school along with numerous
options to further a higher education.
The group seemed to enjoy this option the best, in terms of
agreement on the majority of the advocacy position. The group was
able to work out concerns that they had and also which parts of the
position they felt were the most important. Both in conversation and
in survey questions after the deliberation, victim support and
empowerment seemed to be a common agreement between those
who attended the deliberation. Actual quotes include Now I
recognize [that] the victim is as important as catching the bully,
Thinking about how to empower victims was a new perspective,
and [...] focusing on the victims could be the best way to go.
At one point in the deliberation the topic came up of using an
anti cyberbullying program as a way to bolster the image of the
university. The participants were not fans of this idea at all, because
they felt that it was too superficial. The group consensus was that if a
cyberbullying program were to be put in place, its only intent should
be to combat cyber bullying, rather than to beautify the schools
reputation.
Audience members were presented some discouraging research
that suggests that educational programs sometimes teach bullies
how to bully without detection. One member had a personal story of
this very thing happening in his own high school. Yik Yak was
addressed at an assembly, but the students had never heard of it so
the assembly led to curiosity about the site, which fueled
cyberbullying. The audience felt that as long as the program didnt

focus too heavily on what behaviors are being looked for, then the
risk of backfire would be significantly less than the reward of the
proposed.
After the deliberation, those who participated were asked to
complete post deliberation questionnaires, providing us with
anonymous answers to questions about their personal beliefs and
feelings toward the topics. Attendees cited several times on the post
deliberation questionnaires that the educational system was their
personal favorite option. In response to a question about how their
opinions on cyberbullying changed and what prompted the change,
one participant responded [...] especially the feasibility of an
educational program that focuses on supporting/empowering
victims and bystanders, while a different person wrote I still think
the same, but I think there should be educational programs
implemented. Participants were also asked if the deliberation
changed their perspective on the issue, to which two separate
participants answered Yes, particularly the education and Yes, I
now see that education about cyberbullying especially is something
that could be helpful. Finally, we asked those who attended to give
their own personal opinions on the topic to which one member
wrote An educational program [...] is the most viable option. Five
separate, independent audience members felt that the educational
program would be an option worth pursuing, which is over half of
those who returned surveys.
The educational system was a crowd pleaser because it was the
least controversial option presented. Education is a fact of life in
civilized society, and at a place of learning like Penn State and in
public schools, our program will be easy to implement. Schools have
a responsibility to make sure that education is being carried out
effectively and with cyberbullying being a disruption in the
educational process, trying to curb online harassment through
means of education does not seem like an unreasonable proposal.

Monitoring
For our groups third option to combat the issue of
cyberbullying, we discussed monitoring the online activity and web
accounts of students. Our plan involves monitoring by either
parents, school districts, or social media companies themselves.
Currently school districts across the nation are turning to software
that can comb through student social media posts for warning signs
of harassment and self-harm and red flag those posts. Cyberbullying
experts advise parents to review their kids social media activity and
review messages on different forms of media. Social media
companies like Yik Yak have introduced geofences, which prevent
middle and high school students from posting on school grounds.
YouTube introduced a login system linked to Google Plus accounts to
stem the use of these services for derogatory comments. Monitoring
presents itself as a practical solution in terms of documenting and
stopping ongoing cases of cyberbullying. However, there are key
questions that still need to be considered. Which institution should
be tasked with monitoring the online activity of teens? Is this the
most efficient use of resources? Do school unjustly invade personal
privacy by monitoring students?
To begin our discussion we focused on which institution could
most effectively monitor online activity. Many participants felt that
social media companies were best equipped to monitor posts since
they already have the necessary technology and systems in place.
This year a Yik Yak threat was directed toward Penn State and with
the help of the social media company, police were able to track and
apprehend the culprit. One person brought up the point that many
sites employ moderators, who remove offensive content, and already
allow users to anonymously report other users. The general
sentiment concerning school districts and parents was that both
groups could easily overstep the bounds of trust established with
kids and are often time ill-informed on changing social media
trends. In the post-deliberation questionnaire, one respondent cited
that the monitoring option in itself was not feasible due to the large
number of social media posts. While social media companies were

10

deemed to be the most effective in monitoring social media, most

people agreed that monitoring in itself was not a comprehensive
solution to the problem.
School districts from Huntsville, Alabama to Glendale,
California are beginning to monitor their students and spending
thousands of dollars to so. Investing in monitoring could lower
budgets for other school programs. Therefore, we wanted to
understand how our audience felt about the allocation of school
resources for monitoring students. While we came into the
deliberation with the idea that schools could play a huge role in
ending the toxic role of cyberbullying through discreet monitoring of
social media, our deliberation participants largely believed that this
approach was a reactive measure that focused far more energy on
catching perpetrators than helping victims. One person made the
point that the problem in this case was the not the use of new
technology but the people behind it. Cyberbullying cannot be
entirely eliminated as bullies will change tactics and platforms to
avoid detection, so the focus should be on creating a culture of where
everyone feels safe to come forward to seek help in these
situations. Justin Patchin, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research
Center has argued that the creation of safe spaces for students at
school greatly contributes to ending a culture of bullying. When
asked to choose between implementing more guidance counselors or
a monitoring program in response to end cyberbullying, participants
overwhelmingly agreed that guidance counselors may help victims
to get the help or support they need to resolve a traumatic bullying
experience while monitoring only serves to catch the bully, but not
help the victim. A few participants discussed how the institution of
resources such as an anonymous tip line helped to curb bullying by
making bystanders and victims feel safe to come forward. Through
this deliberation, we learned that our initial approach of focusing on
the perpetrators may be missing the mark of helping those most
affected by bullying. Likewise our post-deliberation questionnaires,
revealed the discussion had shifted perspectives on bullying from
the catching the criminal toward assisting the victim.
In light of recent court cases that have challenged a schools
right to monitor and punish students for their online activities, we

11

wanted to gauge our audiences perspective on the legality of these

monitoring programs. Immediately, a few respondents stated that
they were uncomfortable with the idea that their school could be
intruding into their private lives. Post-deliberation, we received one
comment that stated that while monitoring initially seemed like a
reasonable solution, the deliberation made them think that this
system was too intrusive. One participant was staunchly opposed to
schools punishing students for their actions off-campus. He argued
that at that point a school was overstepping its bounds and its
mandate simply to educate students. Another participant expressed
fears that a school could in effect restrict or silence unpopular speech
by punishing students for their social media posts. The general
consensus of the room was that as a public institution, schools
should be restricted in how they deal with students outside of school.
Unlike at a private institution or workplace, students are required to
by law to be there and therefore should not be subject to the same
level of scrutiny.
Overall, our deliberation revealed that many people were
uncomfortable with institutions mainly schools intruding upon
personal privacy in the name of monitoring social media. Many
deemed that this solution was more of a Band-Aid rather than a cure,
and more proactive measures that assist the victims of cyberbullying
rather than punish perpetrators would be better served. Instead of
having school district monitor social media accounts, this task could
be better performed by private media companies.

Conclusion
Consequently, the audience provided several insightful
opinions and great topics of discussion. Regarding the legal system,
the participants almost unanimously agreed that his solution of
using jail time and fines was simply too harsh of a punishment. Also,
the audience agreed that attempting to create national legislature or
state legislature is not feasible and would not entirely solve the
problem. Next, the second position suggested that a mandatory

12

educational system be implemented to provide individuals with a

clear definition of cyberbullying and aid victims by informing them
of resources and other supports to help them if they are being
cyberbullying. Some individuals at the deliberation worried that if
the program focused too much on what cyberbullying is and the
behaviors that are associated with cyberbullying then the bullies
would learn different techniques to avoid getting caught. However,
overall, participants agreed that an educational system is the most
feasible option as long as the program focuses on aiding the victim
rather than the act of cyberbullying itself. Finally, the third option
suggested that schools, parents, and social media sites themselves
monitor student accounts. Overall, regarding this approach,
participants felt that social media sites themselves should monitor
accounts to ensure the safety of those who use the site. The
individuals at the deliberation greatly opposed having schools and
parents monitor students accounts as they saw it as a privacy
violation and did not believe that schools should be able to punish
its students for off-campus actions. Furthermore, the group decided
that instead of spending money on an expensive monitoring
program, schools should spend the money to hire guidance
counselors who can aid the victim. Overall, the general consensus of
the deliberation is that money, resources, and efforts should be
focused on aiding the victim instead of catching the perpetrator.
Through discussion, the audience determined that the best way to
resolve the issue of cyberbullying would be to implement a
mandatory education program. The program would focus on aiding
the victim by including resources such as where to report
cyberbullying if it occurs and where to seek help if you are a victim
of cyberbullying. Furthermore, another way to aid bullying victims
would be to use money and resources to hire guidance counselors to
help those who have been cyberbullied. By instituting an educational
program and hiring well-trained guidance counselors, victims would
have adequate resources and receive the help they need to combat
cyberbullying.

13

Works Cited
Alvarez, Lizette. Girls Suicide Points to Rise in Apps Used by Cyberbullies.
New York Times. New York Times Company, 13 September 2013. Web. 10
February 2016.
Bywater, Rebecca. "CAS Rebecca Bywater Interview." Personal interview. 10 Feb.
2016.
Clark, Maggie. "49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How's That Working
Out?" 49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How's That Working Out?
Governing the States and Localities, 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
"Cyberbullying Statistics." InternetSafety101.org: Statistics. Enough Is Enough.
Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
"Do Anti-Bullying Programs in Schools Work?" Cyberbully Hotline Anonymous
Bullying Reporting. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
"Federal Laws." Federal Laws. U.S Department of Health and Human Services.
Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Keierleber, Mark. After punishing student for critical tweet, N.J. school district
agrees to change social media policy. Student Press Law Center. Student Press
Law Center, 18 August 2014. Web. 10 February 2016.
Hinduja, Sameer, and Justin Patchin. "State Cyberbullying Laws."
Cyberbullying.org. Cyberbullying Research Center, Jan. 2016. Web. Feb. 2016.
"Penn State World Campus Takes a Stance against Cyberbullying - Corner of
College and Allen." Corner of College and Allen RSS. 18 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Feb.
2016.
Prevent Cyberbullying. stopbullying.gov. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Web. 10 February 2016.
Siner, Emily. Why Spying On Our Kids To Solve Cyberbullying Might Not
Work. NPR. NPR, 17 September 2013. Web. 10 February 2016.

14