Cyberbullying and the First Amendment
Grand Canyon University
POS 500: U.S and Arizona Constitutions for Teacher Candidates
3/17/2021
Cyberbullying and the First Amendment
While bullying remains a problem to be dealt with in the traditional, on campus school
setting, it has more recently transcended into the realm of technology through the use of social
media. Coined cyberbullying, students post defamatory remarks about others on social media
platforms such as Twitter, Snapchat, and Facebook in hopes of hurting other’s feelings or
damaging their reputations. A student has just notified me that she had been the subject of a
cyberbullying post on another student’s Facebook page. This essay identifies the course of action
required by me in response to this act of cyberbullying, theorizes the possible First Amendment
arguments the cyberbully might raise in retaliation to the course of action taken, and exemplifies
the possible responses I might make to their arguments.
Course of Action
Arizona does not have any specific law explicitly pertaining to cyberbullying, yet it is
still against the law under ARS 13-2921(A): Harassment, that states, “Anonymously or otherwise
contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic,
mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses” (AZ State
Legislature, n.d.). Therefore, it is up to school districts to define cyberbullying, develop and
implement policies to protect students against it, and punish the students who commit such
crimes. According to the student handbook at my small catholic school, cyberbullying is
considered and inappropriate and mean behavior and will not be tolerated (S.V.D.P. School,
2018). All allegations surrounding acts of bullying will be swiftly investigated, and then
penalized if warranted. In severe cases where the threat of serious harm emerges, written or
spoken, the school must report the incident to the police under Arizona State law (S.V.D.P.
School, 2018). After being notified of the cyberbullying Facebook post, I am required to
organize a conference involving the student who made the post, their parents, the principal, and
myself (their teacher). Following the conference, the student will be informed that they are
required to provide a written letter of apology to the offended student that I must approve. In
order for the student to be permitted back in class, the letter must be signed by their parents, and
again presented to me; however, suspension or expulsion as a consequence is at the discretion of
the principal (S.V.D.P. School, 2018).
First Amendment: Arguments & Responses
The student who made the cyberbullying Facebook post could argue that the school’s
interference in the matter infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech. The student
could then further their argument by claiming that the school has no authority to limit their
speech by disciplining them for a post made to a social media platform off school property.
While this student does have the right to freedom of expression on social media under the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, due to the extremely harmful effects of bullying, state
governments have given primary and secondary schools the authority to reduce students’ First
Amendment free speech protections (Chung et al., 2020). Not only does the Arizona State
government allow schools to reduce free speech to protect students against the damaging
implications of cyberbullying, the Supreme court, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District (1969), also empowered schools and school officials to limit the free
speech of students given the speech is liable to cause a substantial disruption on campus. The
authority for schools to reduce the free speech of students on social media to prevent a
substantial disruption is evident in a more recent case. In Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools
(2011), the Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruled in favor of the district, citing the school did not
violate the student’s First Amendment to free speech because her post, at the time of creation, in
light of the state’s anti-bullying regulations and the school districts policy against bullying, could
reasonably forecast a substantial on-campus disruption, even though her post was made off
school property.
Conclusion
Bullying, in any form, can have grave and long-lasting harmful effects, especially
cyberbullying. It is the duty of schools and school officials to follow policy, carry out district
procedures, and utilize the authority empowered to them by state governments to effectively
manage and respond to acts of cyberbullying. While some students may argue they have aright to
free speech, it is important for school officials to remember that the protection of students takes
precedence over their limitless free speech rights. If a student who committed an act of
cyberbullying were to proclaim a school’s intervention as a violation of their First Amendment
freedom of expression, a school official need simply to refer to the state’s harassment laws,
student handbook policy regarding cyberbullying, and to cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969) and Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools
(2011).
References
Arizona State Legislature. (n.d.). ARS 13-2921 (A): Harassment; classification; definition.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02921.htm
Chung, J., Kaufman, A., Rauenzahn, B. (2020, December 22). Cyberbullying and the limits of
free speech. The Regulatory Review. https://www.theregreview.org/2020/12/19/saturday-
seminar-cyberbullying-free-speech-limits/.
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, 652 F.3d 565 (2011)
St. Vincent de Paul School. (2018). Parent/student handbook [PDF].
https://svdpschool.org/Parent-Student%20Handbook%2018-19.pdf
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
