Bullying the Bullies

Roy Malone's article in the St. Louis Journalism Review "Online harassment - A hoax, a suicide - a journalistic dilemma" (December 13, 2007) on cyberbullying and the issue of privacy prompted me to look up teen cyberbullying suicides. Have things changed since the Megan Meier case?

Apparently not.

The article "Mean Girls: Cyberbullying Blamed for Teen Suicides" (January 28, 2010) lists the casualties of cyberbullying, including Megan.

"In 2006, Megan Meier killed herself after the mother of a former friend created a fictitious profile to harass the Missouri 13-year-old. Three years earlier, 13-year-old Ryan Patrick Halligan of Vermont hung himself after he'd been bullied online.

"Just this week in Lewisville, Texas, a 9-year-old boy hung himself in the nurse's bathroom at his elementary school.

"...

"This is apparently the second high-profile suicide bullying case in Massachusetts in the past year. In nearby Springfield, 11-year-old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover hung himself with an extension cord after bullies repeatedly called him gay."

Another article "Cyberbullying Continued After Teen's Death" (March 29, 2010) reported how, even in death, the victim continued to get bullied. So much for resting in peace.

"Soccer star Alexis Pilkington, 17, took her own life March 21 following vicious taunts on social networking sites -- which persisted postmortem on Internet tribute pages, worsening the grief of her family and friends."

The article "Amanda Cummings' Suicide Prompts Cyberbullying Bill In New York" (January 10, 2012) prompted action, although I do wonder how much teeth this bill will actually have.

Years later, the sad situation of cyberbullying and teen suicide continues. Apart from reporting these stories, what can the media do to curb the tide of teen cyberbullying suicides? Let's look at the landmark Megan Meier case back in 2006, a good example of what we learned in class - "information that wants to get out, will get out".

The neighbors had the right to privacy.
Suburban Journal's Steve Pokin and colleagues' decision to withhold the neighbors' identities showed the former's respect for the latter's right to privacy. They relied on the court of law to determine the guilt. The neighbors were neither celebrities nor public figures. Therefore, their right to privacy should be respected and upheld.

The Journal's decision to protect the neighbors' identities reflected pluralism and communitarianism - they promoted the societal institutions in place to decide on the best course of action, and eventually, the institutions joined forces in promoting social justice. Let society's institutions do their work. Was it a way to avoid backlash all around? There was the potential for backlash against the Journal, as well as the possibility of the bullies getting bullied by their neighbors and the community-at-large. It could have been a vicious cycle of vengeance.

The neighbors had no right to privacy.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch took over what the Journal started, but stopped midway. They identified the neighbors. In line with Kant's categorical imperative principle, the Post identified the suspects, probably acting out of a sense of duty stemming from their own ethical and moral compass. They acted from the perspective of parents everywhere - wouldn't you want your story heard if something like this happened to your child? Clearly, they went beyond their journalistic duty of reporting.

"News media has been given wide protection to do their work, including by using names and pictures without getting consent". So why hesitate, given this type of situation? We also see the utilitarianism principle at work - it is all right to expose these people for the good of the community. With the unspoken "after all, they inflicted harm first."

Transparency - Both the Journal and the Post aimed for transparency using different approaches. The Journal attempted to balance transparency and respect for privacy. The Post went for transparency and full disclosure. Both approaches are sound and acceptable, but these won't please everyone.

Harm - Bullying, whether online or offline, causes harm. In this situation, it was a planned and targeted team effort by members of a community to inflict harm on Megan Meier. "...the neighbor admitted the scheme to the police". Does "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" make sense in this scenario? Was it fair to put the neighbors in harm's way by revealing their identities? Wouldn't it ultimately be better to prevent more harm? But a judgment call had to be made.

Justice - Three against one. This was an uneven fight compounded by the participation of adults who should have made good judgment calls, but acted contrary. Keeping the neighbors' identities can be viewed as equal to protecting them. These are the same neighbors who bullied the child online which led her to commit suicide. No one protected Megan from them. Where is the justice in that? I understand why people reacted - the neighbors' actions caused this child's death. They should pay the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, "innocent until proven guilty" did not work in this case. Even if the court of law did not find them guilty, they were tried by the public, a trial by publicity, which led to having their right to privacy violated.

Autonomy - Media has been called the "Fourth Estate" - the public's recourse when society's institutions fail to deliver on its promises and responsibilities. The Journal acted as if it had no backbone, which hit the public’s nerves. Bullying victims are forced into silence. In this case, the victim cannot provide testimony because she's dead. Who can speak on behalf of the victim? In the absence of a spokesperson, people look to the media to be the mouthpiece for those who cannot speak.

Privacy - "Private citizens have the right to be free of intrusion into their own private space." Online, people are braver to say and do unseemly things. Do people behave the same way face-to-face and online? Not necessarily. But cyberspace is by no means "private space". It only gives the illusion that it is private space when it is hardly so. Cyberspace is as public as the billboards on I-95. As such, whatever you do in such a public domain is still governed by societal rules.

Community - The fear that "it can happen to all of us" and people can get away with it struck a chord with the public at the time. When harm comes to a member of a community, everyone rises up in arms. In this situation, the neighbors were a part of Megan's community. Instead of protecting a member of their community, they caused harm to one of their own. They broke the community's unwritten social contract. You turn against a member of the community, and the community will turn against you.

Of the two approaches, I am more inclined to go with the Post. Getting the information out there may improve the situation and make people aware of cyberbullying's dire consequences. Keeping the neighbors' identities under wraps might result in a witch hunt. In a strange way, identifying the neighbors can protect the other members of the community. Everyone will know who were the parties involved. There would be no need to suspect everyone else who can be considered "Megan's neighbors". Identified, they can get police protection if needed. Of course, it's a given that the minor's identity should be withheld.

The Journal shared Megan's parents' story, conveyed "simmering outrage" but did not step up. They did not take a stand. They could've used that outrage as fuel to go the extra mile. If you're going to run an expose, run it like you mean it. Don't do it halfheartedly. Present all sides of the story. If you're presenting the Meiers' side, then present the neighbors' side. Even better, include the perspectives of the police, FBI and the prosecutors.

The neighbors hid under the cloak of anonymity when bullying Megan. Yet their bad behavior was further protected when their identities were kept secret, seemingly another cloak of anonymity. It gave the impression that the Journal was collaborating with the whole unholy situation.

Social networks like Facebook or MySpace have an ethical obligation to step in and take action on reports of cyberbullying. Bullying is bullying, whether in the real or virtual world. As social networking sites, they must be willing to embrace both the positive and negative consequences of being such a site. Thankfully, Facebook allows the reporting of violations and gives information on what to do with bullying situations (see here). They also have a Family Safety Center page.

What do you do with such cases? Take reports of bullying seriously. Ban the people. Block their accounts. Sure, bullies also have rights, but rights can be revoked. Most importantly, parents should discuss with their children about the amount of time they spend on social media. While bullying happens offline too, social media’s 24/7 nature amps up the nasty experience. In today's society, we should all remember that what governs face-to-face interactions should also apply in the online world.