Editing Cyberbullying (section)

=== United States ===
Legislation geared at penalizing cyberbullying has been introduced in a number of U.S. states including New York, Missouri, Rhode Island and Maryland. At least 45 states have passed laws against digital harassment.<ref>{{cite news|last=PÉREZ-PEÑA|first=RICHARD|title=Christie Signs Tougher Law on Bullying in Schools|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/nyregion/07bully.html?_r=0|access-date=January 6, 2011}}</ref> Dardenne Prairie of Springfield, Missouri, passed a city ordinance making online harassment a misdemeanor. The city of St. Charles, Missouri passed a similar ordinance. Missouri is among the states where lawmakers are pursuing state legislation, with task forces expected to have cyberbullying laws drafted and implemented.<ref>[http://www.pantagraph.com/news/bill-targets-adults-who-cyberbully/article_6ade6d44-a162-54d1-9be0-88bebf181f6d.html Bill targets adults who cyberbully] Pantagraph, by Kevin Mcdermott, December 20, 2007</ref> In June 2008, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) proposed a federal law that would criminalize acts of cyberbullying.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090730051248/http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9962375-7.html A rallying cry against cyberbullying]. CNET News, by Stefanie Olsen, June 7, 2008</ref>

Lawmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there is currently no specific law on the books that deals with it. A fairly new federal cyberstalking law might address such acts, according to [[Parry Aftab]], but no one has been prosecuted under it yet. The proposed federal law would make it illegal to use electronic means to "coerce, intimidate, harass or cause other substantial emotional distress."

In August 2008, the California state legislature passed one of the first laws in the country to deal directly with cyberbullying. Assembly Bill 86 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fbusd.us/vnews/display.v/ART/4cd41cda558da%3C|title=Fort Bragg USD|access-date=November 18, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170113152021/http://www.fbusd.us/vnews/display.v/ART/4cd41cda558da%3C|archive-date=January 13, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> gives school administrators the authority to discipline students for bullying, offline or online.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.centerdigitaled.com/edtech/Education-Legislation-Cyber-Bullying.html |title=Education Legislation: Cyber-Bullying |publisher=Centerdigitaled.com |date=March 16, 2009 |access-date=June 5, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215110941/http://www.centerdigitaled.com/edtech/Education-Legislation-Cyber-Bullying.html |archive-date=December 15, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> This law took effect on January 1, 2009.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/31/AR2008123103067.html|title=States Passing Laws to Combat Cyber-Bullying&nbsp;— washingtonpost.com|work=The Washington Post |access-date=January 2, 2009|last=Surdin|first=Ashley | date=January 1, 2009}}</ref>

A law in New York's Albany County that criminalized cyberbullying was struck down as unconstitutional by the [[New York Court of Appeals]] in ''[[People v. Marquan M.]]''

A recent{{when|date=December 2017}} ruling first seen in the UK determined that it is possible for an [[Internet service provider]] (ISP) to be liable for the content of the sites it hosts, setting a precedent that any ISP should treat a notice of complaint seriously and investigate it immediately.<ref>[http://www.out-law.com/page-5624 International IT and e-commerce legal info]. Out-law.com. Retrieved on July 6, 2011.</ref>

{{uscsub|18|875|c}} criminalizes the making of threats via the Internet.

While some states have laws that require schools to mediate cyberbullying conflicts, several states have been sued on First Amendment grounds for doing so. By examining the decisions of three such lawsuits heard in lower courts, Alvin J. Primack and Kevin A. Johnson argued that current First Amendment doctrine, particularly the case of ''Morse v. Frederick'' (2007), may offer interpretive resources for justifying administrative reach to some online digital speech. They concluded, "[w]ithout clearer standards, school administrators are likely to feel constrained and err on the side of inaction."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Primack|first1=Alvin J.|last2=Johnson|first2=Kevin A.|date=Spring 2017|title=Student cyberbullying inside the digital schoolhouse gate: Toward a standard for determining where a "School" is|journal=First Amendment Studies|volume=51|issue=1|pages=30–48|doi=10.1080/21689725.2016.1278177|s2cid=151924347}}</ref>