Texas HB 304: David's Law Against Cyberbullying Explained

Introduction and Key Features of Texas HB 304

Texas House Bill 304 is an anti-bullying bill whose title appropriately alludes to the protection of children's rights (CAIR Texas, 2017). If enacted in full, the law would accomplish the following goals.

Offer tools to educational institutions: This bill would authorize educational institutions to examine cases of bullying that occur outside of school, develop an anonymous tip line, and enable greater school latitude in penalizing pupils who engage in serious cyberbullying — for example, urging a child to kill him- or herself.

Reduce the number of victims: Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates reveal suicide to be the second leading cause of adolescent deaths.

Offer tools to law enforcement: Law enforcers can, by means of summonses, increasingly expose anonymous users on social media websites who post or convey intimidating messages. The law would render electronic bullying and harassment of a minor child — via channels such as SMS messaging, social networks, apps, and internet sites — a criminal offense.

Offer tools to pupils and their parents: Parents would receive notifications from their child's school if anyone bullies their child on a digital platform. Both the bully and the victim would be provided rehabilitation and counseling services.

Summary of the Bill's Provisions

The Texas House ratified a state Senate bill aimed at curbing cyberbullying among school-age children. This bill concentrates on several reforms, including offering more flexibility to schools to address cyberbullying. It would provide additional opportunities for school districts to collaborate with local law enforcement, along with an anonymous threat-reporting system for educational institutions and their students. Moreover, the law intends to provide both bullies and their victims with further rehabilitation and counseling resources.

School administrators would be given one day to inform parents of their child's victimization by bullies, as well as to notify the parents of bullies if an investigation into potential bullying activity yields positive findings. The law also creates a criminal offense, beginning with a Class B misdemeanor and escalating to a Class A offense for students with a history of electronic bullying, or of bullying a minor and urging him or her to commit self-harm or suicide (Chang, 2017).

At present, HB 304 has been approved by the state legislature, with its formal legal description worded as "relating to civil liability for bullying of a child." It was scheduled to take effect beginning September 1, 2017 (Minjarez, 2017; Texas House Bill 304, 2017). Among the bill's key features is its classification of electronic bullying and harassment of a minor via SMS messaging and social networks as a crime. The law would require incorporation of cyberbullying provisions into school district policy, mandate that parents of bullies and victims be notified, establish civil liability allowing bullied children's families to sue perpetrators' families, grant summons power to identify anonymous bullies, and require school districts to create anonymous bullying-reporting systems. It would also provide schools with greater authority to expel students or place them in alternative disciplinary academic programs if they are found to have committed severe bullying — such as urging a fellow student to take his or her own life.

Political and Historical Context

Texas's 2011 legislation required school districts to adopt their own anti-bullying policies. Some districts had already instituted such policies; however, the legislation provided a more comprehensive definition of bullying behavior and outlined how schools ought to respond to it. For example, policymakers clarified that digital expression occurring on campus, within a school district-operated bus, or at any school-connected activity could be considered bullying. Nevertheless, the 2011 law failed to address similar expressions made outside school premises — such as social media posts and videos that permeate school life. According to policymakers, bullying was defined as conduct that leads to physical harm to a child, property damage, or the cultivation of a frightening, abusive, or hostile atmosphere for children, provided it was sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive (Chiquillo, 2015).

In many instances, schools must judge for themselves when to intervene. School authorities must ensure that students are protected during investigations — for example, by requiring the suspected bully to sign a no-contact agreement, with parental consent, to stay away from a fellow student. Even when conduct does not meet the formal definition of bullying, district intervention is required if students violate the school's conduct code. However, regarding disciplinary action for off-campus behavior, attorney for the Texas Association of School Boards, Blanton, argued that schools must meet a high standard due to students' First Amendment rights. According to case law, districts may act if they can establish that speech significantly disrupts the academic process — for instance, by causing a teacher to lose control of the classroom. In cases involving a perceived threat, the district must ensure students are protected and allow law enforcement to determine whether the conduct constitutes a criminal act (Chiquillo, 2015).

This bill, ratified by all but eleven members of the House, has been labeled "David's Law," named after David Molak, a sixteen-year-old who took his own life in January 2016 after enduring relentless cyberbullying from peers at Alamo Heights High School related to his appearance and including threats of physical violence (Chang, 2017). The formal measure, Senate Bill No. 179, was modified by Republican representatives who had earlier voiced concerns that earlier versions went too far in imposing punishments and mandating new obligations on school districts (Ward, 2017).

Several members of the House spoke movingly about the need to monitor students' online activity, prevent bullying-related child deaths, and promote mutual respect. This sentiment was particularly resonant during a legislative session that frequently involved contentious debates on abortion, immigration, LGBT rights, and other divisive topics. Republican State Representative Wayne Faircloth of Galveston, speaking in support of the bill, argued that it was time people began treating one another with respect — starting within the House itself. He acknowledged that disagreeing on policy was acceptable, but that personal attacks were not, stating the need to set an example in the state legislature about how people treat one another, how they speak, how they conduct themselves, and how they listen and try to understand (Chang, 2017).