Identification, Legislation and Prevention
of Cyberbully on Teens
Xulong Peng
CSC 540
For
Dr. William Lyle
March 31, 2015
Identification, Legislation and Prevention of Cyberbully on Teens
Xulong Peng
1. Introduction
1.1 What is cyberbullying and who are the victims?
Computer science technologies and internet development take us into the information age and
bring us a lot of benefits to our social, academic and family lives. However, they also bring us a host of
dangers such as privacy invading, hacking, identity theft, phishing. Online harassment and cyberbullying
may have the most common impacts on teens. Cyberbullying is bullying that uses information
technology such as cell phones, instant/texting message and social media, to repeatedly harm or harass
other people in a deliberate manner. 1 Cyberbullying has many serious and long-lasting negative impacts
on teens and it has become a major and growing problem for teens in many countries including USA and
Canada.
With technological evolution in the past decade, the number of teens who own cell phones
increased from 45% in 2004 to 75% in 2010 according to Pew Research Center2. The majority of teens
also use internet (95%) to gather information for reports, talk to friends and practice their social skills
(Harris Interactive, 2007). They use these communication tools in many locations including their homes,
schools and public libraries. Teens are online frequently and much of their time is spend in positive
behaviors, such as researching for homework, visiting education websites to gain knowledge. It is clear
there is a positive side the internet provides. However, it is also a fact that serious harm has been
caused by cyberbullying. With teens spending increasing amounts of time on the internet, it is not
surprising that cyberbullying is most prevalent among teens.
1
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/04/20/teens -and-mobile-phones/
1.2 The forms and impact of cyberbullying
Cyberbullying is a common and painful experience for teenage victims. The major forms of
cyberbullying behaviors include1 : 1. Impersonation, to break into someone’s online account and
pretend they are other people online to trick others; 2. Denigration, to spread lies and rumors to
damage victim’s reputation or friendships; 3. Outing and trickery, to trick people into revealing personal
information and forwarding others that information; 4. Harassment and stalking, to repeatedly sending
or forwarding mean, cruel, vicious and threatening messages; 5. Post pictures of victims without their
permission; 6. Flaming, an indirect form of cyberbullying that involves online fights using electric
messages with angry or/and rude languages.
According to the National Crime Prevention Council survey (NCPC, 2007): 43% of teens reported
that they have experienced cyberbullying but 90% of the victims are too ashamed or embarrassed to
report the incidents to their parents or other authorities. One reason is that they fear that bullying will
become more frequent and intense. Another reason is that they fear the parents will take away or limi t
their time on their cell phone, computer or other electronic devices. Therefore, the actual percentage of
teens being cyberbullied may be higher than 50%. The survey also shows that 75% of victims can
eventually figure out who cyberbullied them; often this is a friend they know from school or someone
else they know. But the remaining 25% of victims was bullied by someone they do not know. More
females (51%) than males (37%) have been victims of cyberbullying. Another report shows this rate is
female (38%) vs male (26%) (Notar, et al., 2013). Cyberbullying victim’s emotions varied from anger to
embarrassment to indifference. NCPC survey results showed that victim’s feeling ranged from angry
(56%), hurt (33%), embarrassed (32%) to scared (13%). Female are more likely than males to report all of
these emotions. In general, social isolates were most likely to bully or been bullied and gifted teens were
1
http://www.nasponline.org/
less likely to bully or be bullied (Notar, et al., 2013). The same survey showed that near one quarter
(23%) of victims were bullied by someone they do not know.
1.3 How is cyberbullying different from traditional bullying?
Compared to traditional bullying on the playground at school, cyberbullying has different effects
and the negative impacts of cyberbully are more harmful and last longer. First, victims cannot run or
hide from cyberbullying. For the traditional bullying, once a victim gets home he or she is away from the
bully until the next day. For the cyberbullying, a victim cannot escape as he or she cons tantly receives
the bullying messages. Second, self-harming by the victim was reported due to the messages and
cyberbullying and some victim even has suicidal intentions or suicides in the worst cases. Third,
cyberbullying can reach a very large audience in a peer group and a much larger number of victims as
well. The reason is that an internet based communication can be distributed widely and instantly. In
addition to the bully and the victim, it can be accessed by endless other users on the internet. For
example, when nasty comments are posted on a public website, the number of audience that read the
comments is potentially large. Some social-networking websites such as MySpace, Facebook and
Google+ provide a public forum which could be used for cyberbullying. Certain websites such as The
Dirty1 are special websites for cyberbullying to post photos of individuals along with insulting captions.
Fourth, the internet affords a measure of invisibility and anonymity which makes it easy to say and do
things one would not say or do in person. Therefore cyberbullying is especially harmful. Even though
cyberbully is traceable and eventually can be identified, they can communicate harmful messages
without identifying themselves for a long time. It is particularly difficult for victims to respond initially 2.
Finally, since it is often difficult to remove the posted harmful material, the information may remain
online indefinitely and the sting of cyberbullying continues.
1
2
http://thedirty.com
http://nobullying.com/amanda-todd-story/
According to a U.S. Department of Justice report 1, both cyberbullying victims and offenders are
emotionally harmed by the action of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying leaves many victims feeling sad,
depressed, angry, frustrated and embarrassed. It may also contribute to physical aggression, poor
academic behavior, depression and suicide. These feelings may cause teens to fear going to school and
make them difficult to adjust socially and emotionally to focus on their studies and further develop in
mental health. Cyberbullying was associated with many dangerous behaviors and psychosocial problems
such as alcohol and drug use, aggression and suicidal thoughts. Cyberbullying also impacts other areas of
psychological and cognitive development. In the worst cases, some victims have taken their own lives.
2. Case of Megan Meier (1992 – 2006) and legislation in USA
2.1 The story of Megan Meier
The case of Megan Meier is one of many unforgettable cyberbullying cases. Through extensive
media coverage of her death, Meier has become the poster child for cyberbullying. Below is the true
story about Megan Meier Case 2. Megan Meier was 13-year-old girl lived in Missouri. Five weeks before
her suicide, a boy named Josh Evans contacted her through her MySpace page and wanted to be a
friend. She thought he was cute and hot. After she added him and they began communicating online
regularly but they never met in person or spoke on the phone. Megan struggled with self-esteem and
worries about her weight in her lifetime. When she finally had a boy who really thought she was pretty,
she was happy and she rushed to the computer every day after school. On October 15, 2006, Megan
received a message from Josh saying he did not want to be friends anymore as he had heard that Megan
was not nice to her friends. The next day, Josh sent a cruel message “The world would be a better place
without you”. Megan hung herself in her bedroom closet and died the following day on October 17,
2006. Later, a neighbor told Megan’s parents that Josh did not exist and actually the account was
1
2
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200127.pdf
http://nobullying.com/six-unforgettable-cyber-bullying-cases/
created by another neighbor, Lori Drew, a 47 year-old-woman and her teenage daughter and another
teenage girl who used to be Megan’s friend. The case received national attention through extensive
media coverage of her death. However, no criminal charges were filed against the offenders or any
participant in the Josh Evans hoax as U.S. District Judge George Wu acquitted Drew in August 2009 and
vacated the conviction. The main reason was there was no law drafted to criminalize someone using
electronic communications to cyberbullying another person or engage in similar behavior. It was not just
Missouri which did not have this kind of law. Many other States also did not have similar laws to punish
cyberbullies. Lawmakers at both the State and Federal levels balked with the issue. The major
controversy is that it may infringe people’s First Amendment rights to free speech and current laws
cannot determine the precise point that if a particular behavior has crossed the threshold (Hinduja and
Patchin, 2015). Although existing laws may include legal terms which cover many cyberbullying
behaviors such as harassment, stalking and felonious, these existing laws are inadequacies to remedy
certain cases as they are not designed to address the problem of cyberbullying (Hinduja and Patchin,
2015). For example, In the Megan Meier Case, Missouri prosecutors did not charge Drew with a crime
but could not find any fact because there is no federal statute punishes cyberbullying. Even though
federal prosecutor charged Lori Drew for three violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for
accessing protected computers without authorization (anti-hacking statute), the jury verdict in the case
was overturned by U.S. District Judge George Wu because it fails to provide a solution to the central
harm committed against Megan and it was the premise that was troubling. Wu said “it basically leaves it
up to a website owner to determine what is a crime and therefore it criminalizes what would be a
breach of contract”.1
2.2 State and Federal legislation on cyberbullying
1
http://www.wired.com/2009/07/drew_court/
Although Megan Meier case resulted in acquaintance of the defendant, this case highlighted the
inadequacies of current legal framework to punish and deter cyberbullies. This case and many other
cases of cyberbullying pushed State and Federal legislation to pass bills for cyberbullying. Because the
law is continuous evolving and meanwhile avoiding conflicts with constitutional and civil rights, the way
for the bills to become laws is not very straightforward.
In Missouri, Senate Bill 818, “Modifies various provisions relating to stalking and harassment”
(unofficially known as “Megan’s Law”) was signed by Missouri Governor on June 30th, 2008 updating
state laws against harassment which extended harassment from telephone to computers, text messages
and other electronic devices, effective on August 28, 2008.
As of January 20151, forty-nine states, except Montana, have enacted bullying prevention laws.
They all require that schools must have policies to deal with bullying, and almost all of them refer to
electronic forms of harassment (or cyberbullying specifically). But it varies from state to state regarding
what exactly is mandated. Twenty-two states clearly include cyberbullying in laws. But only fourteen
states punish cyberbullying as criminal sanction. However, forty-four states include school sanction in
the laws. Many states’ laws require school districts to implement measures for identifying, reporting and
documenting incidents of cyberbullying. Kentucky’s proposed law requires local school districts to
provide training for professionals with direct student contact to help identify, respond to and prevent
cyberbullying2. Table 1 shows the status of cyberbullying laws and policies by state.
On the federal legislative level, U.S Representative Linda Sanchez of California introduced the
bill of “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act”, aiming to end cyberbullying in April 2009.
Unfortunately the bill was not enacted and the bill was criticized as an unconstitutional restriction on
1
2
http://www.cyberbullying.us/
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08rs/HB91.htm
free speech during the hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security1 .
“Student Internet Safety Act” introduced by Adam Putnam, a U.S. representative for Florida on
Jan 28, 2009, is an approach to prevent cyberbullying through education. It requires each local
educational agency that receives federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 to develop and implement programs to promote safe internet use by students. Such
programs would include cyberbullying awareness education and increased involvement from parents to
reinforce safe Internet use by their children. The bill was passed by the House on June 16, 2009, but it
was never passed by the Senate. 2
Table 1. A Brief Review of State Cyberbullying Laws and Policies 3
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
1
Bul l yi ng
law
Incl ude
“cyberbul l yi ng”
Incl ude
el ectroni c
ha ra s s ment
Cri mi na l
s a ncti on
School
s a ncti on
Requi res
School
Pol i cy
Incl ude off
ca mpus
beha vi ors ?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
proposed
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
proposed
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
proposed
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
Proposed
NO
NO
NO
NO
proposed
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
proposed
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
proposed
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
proposed
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/cyberbullyingbill/
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr780
3
Source: www.cyberbullying.us (By January 2015)
2
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rohde Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
STATE TOTALS
FEDERAL
Washington DC
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
49
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
22
proposed – 2009
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
48
proposed
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
proposed
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
14
proposed
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
44
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
49
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
14
NO
YES
3. Amanda Todd (1996 – 2012) Case and Legislation in Canada
3.1 The story of Amanda Todd
The case of Amanda Todd is another cyberbullying case that happened recently. Even it happens
in Canada but it is widely reported internationally as the suspected cyberbully is a Dutch. Amanda was a
16-year-old girl lived in British Columbia, Canada. One month before she hanged herself in her home on
October 10, 2012, she posted a video entitled “My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self-harm” to
YouTube and the video had been viewed more than 17 million times. When she was in the seventh
grade, she started to use video chat to meet new people online. One stranger, later was id entified as a
35-year-old Dutch man, convinced her to bare her breasts on her webcam. One year later, the same
person or another anonymous person sent her the picture and started a massive act of bullying. The
man used the photo to blackmail her and began circulating the picture on the Internet, including a
FaceBook profile that used the topless photograph as the profile image. Although she changed schools
several times but the man, just like her shadow, always followed her and became a FaceBook friend. Her
reputation was ruined. She lost her friends and was bullied by some classmates. Months later she
hanged herself and took her own life. After her passing, the cyberbullying continued online and people
ridiculed her suicide and some even said she deserved what had happened to her. “The truth remains
that people who bullied and tormented Amanda still walk the streets everyday thinking their hate
and actions mean nothing while in fact every comment they have made about her while she was
alive or after her death, brings so much pain to the people who loved her”.1
The 35-year-old Dutch suspect lived in Netherlands and maintained anonymity, but he was
finally traced and identified. After a two-year investigation, he was arrested and charged in April 2014
for his connection to Amanda Todd’s suicide. According to Canadian police, the suspect was charged
with extortion, internet luring, criminal harassment and child pornography. 2 The materials found at his
home may link to other cases of online abuse in the Netherlands, the UK and the US.
3.2 Canadian Legislation on cyberbullying and its controversy
Like the consequence of Megan Meier case, the Amanda Todd case and other cases in Canada
pushed Canadian Parliament to pass legislation to prevent cyberbullying. “The Protecting Canadians
from Online Crime Act” (Bill C-13) was introduced by Justice Minister Peter MacKay in November 2013.
This bill was designed to help prevent children from cyberbullying. However it raised privacy concerns by
Canadian citizens. Critics say that the bill could have completely overhauled the entire system, provide
increased power for law enforcement agencies; that it would allow the police and other government
agencies to access private data from telecom companies, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and social
media companies without warrants from a federal judge 3. Similar as the situation after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, the concerns about individual privacy took a backseat to the concerns
1
http://nobullying.com/amanda-todd-story/
http://nobullying.com/amanda-todd-story/
3
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/13
2
about national security. This concern is reflected in current spying issues, such as Edward Snowden’s
case, with United States and other countries around the world. MacKay explained the bill was aimed to
enable police with the necessary means to fight crime in current high-tech environment while
maintaining the judicial checks and balances needed to protect Canadians’ privacy. However, Amanda
Todd’s Mother thought that the cyberbullying bill (C-13) might have gone too far and could harm privacy
rights. She worried that the entire law could be rendered useless if it faced a successful court challenge
over privacy concerns. She told media: “We should not have to choose between our privacy and our
safety. We should not have to sacrifice our children’s privacy rights to make them safe from
cyberbullying, sextortion, and revenge pornography” .1 Opponents also thought that the bill did not
keep children safe from cyberbullying but instead it would only give the law enforcement additional
powers to monitor Internet usage. Meanwhile, the bill was supported by many others. They argued that
privacy concerns should yield the way at this point as the bill was not about an invasion of privacy.
Instead, it is about allowing police officers to effectively address the many challenges of instant mass
communication and abuse and further to help reduce cyberbullying. 2 After one year’s debate and three
readings by the Parliament of Canada, “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act” was passed to
become a law on December 9, 2014. 3
4. Cyberbullying Prevention
According to Mason (2008), a comprehensive cyberbullying prevention program may be the
most effective way to prevent cyberbullying. Survey from Harris Interactive Market Research also
supports that cyberbullying prevention needs to combine efforts of home, school, and online
institutions to prevent, reduce, or eliminate cyberbullying (Harris Interactive, 2007).
1
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/13/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/poli tics/ (May 13, 2014)
3
http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo
2
A survey (Harris Interactive, 2007) shows that the most effective way to prevent cyberbullying is
to block the person who cyberbully from communication with the victims (71%) and in many cases this
will eventually lead the bully to stop. Victims should not retaliate as this cause more intensive
harassment and may make it unclear as to who originally starts this behavior. All victims of this behavior
need to alert responsible parents as soon as it occurs. The next most effective way is to reject pass along
the cyberbully message (62%). Following that, 56% think that online groups and ISPs should block
cyberbullies’ messages. Hinguja and Patchin (2012) also give many tips for teens how to respond to
cyberbullying. These tips include tell someone, do not respond cyberbully, never retaliate, save the
evidence, block access to cyberbullies, file a complaint to the content providers and call law
enforcement if the cyberbullying includes threats of harm etc. Most time s, these responses will reduce
or stop cyberbullying.
To prevent cyberbullying, parents play an important role since cyberbullying occurs most often
while teens are at home. Responsible parents should take steps to help prevent cyberbullying. These
steps may include (Feinberg and Robey 2010; Hinguha and Patchin, 2012; PACER Center Inc., 2013): 1.
Talk to your child about internet and cell phone safety and encourage children to talk to parents if
anything is happening and help your child understand that cyberbullying is harmful and unacceptable
behavior. 2. Set up home computer(s) in easily viewable places where you can supervise your child’s
internet use and monitor the amount of time your child spends online and tell them you may review
their online communications if there is any reason for concern. 3. Set cyber safety rules with your child
such as do not do or say anything online that you would not do or say in person and do not reveal
anything that you would not tell a stranger. 4. Use certain tracking software to block inappropriate Web
content and check your child’s online activities. 5. Beware of warning signs that might indicate the child
is being bullied, such as suddenly stop using their computer o cell phone or may become anxious while
using them, a change in the child’s behavior and mood etc. 6. Support antibullying legislation and
internet safety polices as well as school policies on computer use rules and protocols.
Since many states have balked at passing new laws to further criminalize cyberbullying and
instead opted to direct schools to deal with the problem (Hinduja and Patchin, 2015) , schools play a
more and more important role on cyberbullying prevention and intervention. Some state, Like Kentucky,
does not include cyberbullying in the law. Instead, it requires local school district to provide training for
professionals with direct student contact to help identify, respond to, and prevent cyberbullying.1
Research shows that in some schools there was a 25% - 50% reduction in the amount of cyberbullying
when a comprehensive cyberbullying program was implemented (Mason, 2008). Following are some
steps on prevention for educators (Feinberg and Robey 2010; Willard, 2007): 1. Make a plan to
implement a threat assessment for any report of cyberbullying that raises concerns about the possibility
of violence or suicide. 2. Teach students about ethical and legal standards for online activities and
consequences for cyberbullying and online cruelty, and updates policies to include guidelines for
internet and cell phone use. 3. Provide parents, students and community members with information
about preventing and responding to cyberbullying and provide training for the early warning signs to
identify the victims of cyberbullying. 4. Promote empathy, ethical decision-making skills and respect
among the students. 5. Educate students about cyberbullying and discuss strategies for reacting to
cyberbullying as targets and as bystanders. 6. Create procedures for reporting, investigating and
preventing cyberbullying.
5. Conclusion
With the evolution in computer and internet technologies in the past decade, cyberbullying is a
serious, long-standing social problem and impacts millions of teens worldwide. Psychological problems
1
http://www.cyberbullying.us/
including suicidal thoughts and violent response have become a public concern for cyberbullying. To
prevent cyberbullying, combined efforts from legislation, educators, communities and family are needed.
The legislations for punishing cyberbullies and protecting victims are necessary however, the best
effective way to deal with cyberbullying is at home or/and in school’s classrooms.
Works Cited
1. Teens and Cyberbullying, 2007, Harris Interactive Market Research.
2. Cyberbullying Legislation and Case Law, Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin, 2015,
Cyberbullying Research Center (CRC).
3. Cyberbullying: A Review of the Literature, Charles E. Notar, Sharon Padgett, Jessica Roden, 2013,
Universal Journal of Educational Research 1(1): 1-9, 2013
4. National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) (2007). Teens and Cyberbullying: Executive Summary
of a Report on Research Conducted for National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)
5. Bullying and Cyberbullying: History, Statistics, Law, Prevention and Analysis, Richard Donegan.
(https://www.elon.edu/docs/eweb/academics/communications/research/vol3no1/04DoneganEJSpring12.pdf)
6. Preventing Cyberbullying, Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin, 2012, Cyberbullying Research
Center (CRC).
7. Responding to Cyberbullying, Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin, 2012, Cyberbullying
Research Center (CRC).
8. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25465548
9. http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/4747.aspx
10. http://nobullying.com/six-unforgettable-cyber-bullying-cases/
11. Carol Todd on Bill C-13: “What happened to Democracy?” (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/11)
12. The Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/
13. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/02/health/cyberbullying-in-college/index.html
14. Educator’s Guild to Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats, Nancy Willard, 2007, (http://www.csriu.org)
15. http://amandatoddlegacy.org/
16. http://nobullying.com/the-megan-meier-story/
17. Privacy concerns raised about new cyberbullying legislation. (www.cbc.ca/news/politics: May 1,
2014)
18. Mason, K., Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel, 2008. Psychology in
the schools, 45(4), 323-348.
19. Cyberbullying: What Parents Can do to Protect their Children, 2013. PACER’s National
Bullying Prevention Center.