The First Amendment Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying and the First Amendment 1

Cyberbullying and the First Amendment

Cyberbullying is categorized as harassment in the first amendment, and several cases have been used to explain this. According to the first amendment, cyberbullying is a kind of bullying done using any electronic communication service. It also uses cellular and other telephones, computers, cameras, electronic mail, text messaging, or instant messaging. It can also be done using an internet website, social media application, or another internet-based communication tool (Johnson, 2020).

The Texas Education Code describes harassment as threatening to cause bodily injury or harm. In contrast, other students engage in other intimidating activities that could cause emotional or physical damage to others and their properties. According to the law, this could lead to restraints or physical confinement since it is the intentional cause of harm emotionally and physically to others. Cyberbullying is an example of harassment according to Texas law, and it is also categorized as online misbehavior (Reporters Committee For the Freedom of Press, 2012).

Suppose there is a connection between the student's online activity and the school, like creating a website maintained on campus. In that case, the school discipline should have the jurisdiction to discipline any cyberbullying case under federal and state law. The courts work with the school disciplinary administrators to find a solution to these cases and even punish those found guilty. These corrective measures are highly likely to be created to match the severity of the offense.

The 1969 Tinker V. Des Moines case was characterized by a ruling by the Supreme Court which stated that public school officials do not have the power to promote the freedom of speech among the students unless this freedom could disrupt the school activities or be a cause of the invasion of other people's rights. Seven out of 2 judges from the supreme court ruled that neither the teachers nor students left their constitutional rights of expression or speech at the school gate. Still, they could access these rights even in the school (United States Court, n.d). The court concluded that the school officials never had a right to prohibit the people in a school setup from speaking, arguing that the speech could adversely affect learning activities. According to the other two judges, the first amendment does not give the students the right to express their opinions since they are in school to learn and not to teach. However, giving students the freedom to expression creates a more productive learning environment. The Morse v. Frederick case and the Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser state that many people believe that the constitution does not fully protect some types of speech for students during supervised events (United States Court, n.d). The message was by his admission and not political like it was in Tinker. All these cases show that the first amendment asks for the students in schools to be given the freedom of speech (Justia, n.d). When this occurs, they can be subjected to cyberbullying, affecting how they see life.

The arguments of the first amendment could be changed to make them consistent. The first amendment guarantees people the freedom of expression, assembly, religion, and petition. It has an establishment clause prohibiting the government from being part of the law-making process (Reporters Committee For the Freedom of Press, 2012). It respects the establishment of the right to speech, but it also forbids the government from favoring other groups at the expense of others. More changes could be made to the first amendment to show what favoring one person at the expense of another involves and how this can be measured. In the Tinker V. Des Moines case, it would be easier to show that the limitations of the freedom of expression should be explained when this right is prohibited.

In summary, the first amendment shows that the freedom of expression is vital among people, and the government is prohibited from showing favoritism to any side. However, the change that could be made in the first amendment is based on delivering when the freedom of expression is limited and what may happen in such a case.