UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 12.5 Free with a free account
Landmark Court Decisions That Have Shaped How We Handle Online Bullying Today
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 12: Cyber Harassment, Cybercrime, and How Digital Criminals OperateSection 12.5 · lesson 71 of 11614 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: What Counts as a Crime When It Happens Through Computers and Digital Networks →← How the Federal Government Has Stepped In to Address Cyberbullying at a National LevelNext lesson: What Counts as a Crime When It Happens Through Computers and Digital Networks →
In this lesson
Student speech, statutory fit, and the mental state required for true-threat prosecution.
- Explain Tinker’s protection for expression and its disruption / rights framework.
- Apply Mahanoy’s qualified limits on public-school authority over off-campus speech.
- Distinguish Drew’s fair-notice problem from Elonis’s statutory mental-state holding.
- Explain Counterman’s recklessness floor, then separate discipline, prosecution, and moderation.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,728 words). Read along, or search it.
Cyber Harassment, Cybercrime, and How Digital Criminals Operate
Court Decisions on Online Bullying
Online bullying raises questions about school authority, statutory fit, criminal proof, and protected expression. Older rules developed before social media, yet courts must apply them to modern digital circumstances. Messages can reach people at home, spread quickly, and become part of a connected harmful pattern. This lesson examines five historical decisions that explain important boundaries. Tinker and Mahanoy concern public-school authority over student speech. Drew concerns an unsuccessful computer-access charging theory and constitutional fair notice. Elonis addresses the mental-state requirement under a particular federal threat statute. Counterman addresses the First Amendment minimum for true-threat prosecutions. We will distinguish a reasonable observer’s assessment from the speaker’s own understanding. Then we will compare school discipline, criminal prosecution, and platform moderation. The task is to identify the correct standard, rather than assume one rule governs every harmful post.
Five Decisions
Two School-Speech Cases and Three Criminal-Law Questions
The five decisions span more than fifty years, with different legal questions. Tinker, decided in nineteen sixty-nine, protected public-school student expression while recognizing justified restrictions. The disruption framework also concerns invasion of other students’ rights. Drew’s two thousand nine district-court decision rejected a misdemeanor computer-access theory based on website terms. That decision concerned vagueness and fair notice, rather than a Supreme Court true-threat mental-state rule. Elonis, in twenty fifteen, rejected negligence under the named federal threats statute. It left recklessness and the constitutional issue undecided. Mahanoy, in twenty twenty-one, recognized both limits and continuing interests concerning off-campus student speech. Counterman, in twenty twenty-three, required at least recklessness in true-threat cases. School authority, statutory elements, fair notice, and constitutional awareness requirements must remain distinct. A legal comparison is useful only when it preserves what each court actually decided.
Tinker, 1969
Unpopular Expression Requires More Than an Official’s Discomfort
The Tinker dispute began with black armbands worn to protest the Vietnam War in December nineteen sixty-five. School officials banned the armbands, and participating students were suspended. The Supreme Court later protected this peaceful expression. Students retain constitutional speech rights in public schools, even when their opinions make officials uncomfortable. Under Tinker, material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline can justify restriction. The framework also concerns invasion of the rights of others. An undifferentiated fear that disagreement might occur is not sufficient. A supported reasonable forecast can matter; officials need not always wait until disruption has actually occurred. The required justification must have a real factual basis. Later decisions recognize other defined categories and contexts, so Tinker is not the entirety of student-speech law. A digital post does not become automatically punishable simply because it mentions a school or uses school equipment.
Mahanoy, 2021
The Court Protected B.L.’s Off-Campus Complaint About Cheerleading
Mahanoy concerned a student who did not make her school’s varsity cheerleading squad. Off campus over a weekend, she used her personal phone to post profane criticism. The Snapchat post reached a coach, and she was suspended from the team for a year. The Supreme Court ruled eight to one that this discipline violated her First Amendment rights. The facts did not establish sufficient disruption or serious targeted harassment to justify that action. The Court gave three important reasons for caution about off-campus regulation. First, schools ordinarily have less authority to stand in parents’ place outside school. Second, combined on-campus and off-campus control could reach almost everything a student says throughout the day. Third, public schools have an interest in protecting unpopular expression. Those reasons matter for criticism of the school itself, rather than only agreeable opinions. Mentioning the school did not remove the student’s protection or automatically validate the team’s disciplinary decision.
Qualified Off-Campus Authority
Off-Campus Authority Requires Careful Justification
Mahanoy did not eliminate school authority over every off-campus circumstance. The Court identified serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals as potentially significant. Threats toward teachers or other students can also implicate school interests. Rules concerning lessons, papers, computers, and participation in online school activities provide additional examples. School security breaches, including material maintained in school computers, can matter as well. These examples are not automatic permissions or a complete checklist. Authority and constitutional justification still depend on the actual circumstances. Consider a Saturday-night rant about a classmate, posted from home without violence language or Monday disruption. Ordinary criticism is strongly protected, and mentioning a school is not enough to justify punishment. But serious targeted harassment or an invasion of rights cannot be ruled out solely from those limited facts. Examine the content, context, connected pattern, and applicable standards before reaching a disciplinary conclusion.
United States v. Drew, 2009
Harmful Conduct Still Required a Legally Valid Charging Theory
The Drew case followed a cruel interaction conducted through a fictitious teenage-boy MySpace profile. An adult helped create the profile used to interact with thirteen-year-old Megan Meier. Megan later died by suicide; this history should not be reduced to a claim of one proven sole cause. Prosecutors used the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, commonly called the CFAA. They treated false-profile and website-terms violations as unauthorized computer access. A jury returned misdemeanor convictions, but the district judge granted the motion for acquittal in twenty oh-nine. The written decision addressed the constitutional vagueness of this particular misdemeanor theory. Privately written website terms could become sweeping criminal boundaries without adequate notice or enforcement guidance. The outcome did not declare the conduct harmless or every fake profile lawful. Actual unauthorized computer intrusion can raise different CFAA questions, even when harassment is also involved. The lesson is that serious harm does not repair a charging theory that fails its legal requirements.
Elonis, 2015
The Court Rejected Negligence Under the Federal Threat Statute
Elonis posted graphically violent material on Facebook about his estranged wife, co-workers, children, and law enforcement. He characterized the posts as artistic expression, with fictional disclaimers. The jury’s threat instruction relied on what a reasonable person would foresee, rather than the required subjective mental state. The Supreme Court rejected this negligence basis under the federal statute, Section Eight Seventy-five, subsection C. The holding was an interpretation of that statute. Purpose to issue a threat, or knowledge that the communication would be viewed as a threat, satisfies its mental-state requirement. The Court did not decide whether recklessness would also satisfy the statute. It also did not reach the First Amendment issue. The judgment was reversed and remanded, rather than declaring every fictional disclaimer a complete defense. What the communication conveys and what the speaker understood are related but different inquiries. Awareness of threatening meaning is also different from an actual intention to carry out violence.
Counterman, 2023
True-Threat Prosecution Requires Some Subjective Awareness
Counterman repeatedly sent unsolicited Facebook messages to a musician who had never met him. The communications frightened her and changed her daily activities and performances. Colorado used an objective threat assessment without requiring awareness of the communications’ threatening character. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded. In true-threat cases, the First Amendment requires some subjective understanding. At least recklessness is sufficient for this constitutional minimum. Recklessness means consciously disregarding a substantial risk that the communications will be understood as threatening violence. A reasonable observer’s conclusion alone does not establish that awareness. The rule provides breathing room for protected expression while recognizing serious harms from threats. It does not require purpose to threaten as the constitutional minimum. A particular statute can require more, and other offense elements still need proof; not every unsettling message becomes a true threat.
Mental-State Comparison
The Mental-State Floor for True-Threat Prosecution
Compare four mental states concerning a communication’s threatening character. Negligence means a reasonable person should have recognized the relevant risk. That standard does not itself require the speaker’s actual awareness. Recklessness requires awareness of a substantial risk and conscious disregard of it. Knowledge means the speaker knows the communication will be viewed as a threat. Purpose means the speaker communicates for the purpose of issuing a threat. Counterman places the constitutional floor for true-threat prosecution at recklessness, above mere carelessness. Knowledge and purpose also meet that minimum, though statutes may demand more than the constitutional floor. The ladder concerns culpability, rather than an automatic determination that every message is threatening. The communication’s actual character and other criminal elements remain important. An intention actually to commit violence is a different question from awareness that words convey a threat.
The Holdings Side by Side
Do Not Turn a Limited Ruling Into an Unlimited Permission
A side-by-side comparison helps prevent several common overstatements. Tinker does not mean officials must always wait for actual disruption or ignore others’ rights. It also is not the only rule in every school-speech setting. Drew does not forbid every CFAA prosecution involving conduct that also harasses someone. Its misdemeanor website-terms theory failed constitutional fair-notice requirements. Elonis did not set the First Amendment recklessness floor in twenty fifteen. It decided a statutory negligence question and left additional issues open. Mahanoy did not make every off-campus rant punishable, or every off-campus threat immune from school response. Counterman does not give every stalking offense identical elements or guarantee conviction from reckless speech alone. A serious harm and a valid governmental response must both be examined. The response needs proper authority, clear rules, adequate evidence, and the applicable procedures.
Separate Decision Makers
School Discipline, Criminal Prosecution, and Moderation Have Different Roles
School discipline, criminal prosecution, and platform moderation involve different decision makers. A public school assesses its authority, educational effects, applicable rules, rights, and fair procedures. Ordinary off-campus criticism differs from a sustained serious campaign targeting a classmate. A prosecutor needs a particular criminal offense, attribution, evidence, and its required elements. A true-threat theory also needs the constitutional mental-state protection described in Counterman. That means at least recklessness concerning the communication’s threatening meaning, rather than automatically proving every statutory requirement. A platform applies its relevant content rules, reporting processes, and legal obligations. For example, YouTube’s harassment policy provides a moderation route distinct from a criminal verdict. A removed post is not itself proof of criminal guilt. A failed prosecution also does not itself require the platform to host the content. For a repeated-message campaign, assess each route separately, preserve context when safe, and seek appropriate safety and support resources.
Review and Apply
Use the Correct Rule for the Correct Question
For review, first analyze the Saturday-night rant without assuming every classmate criticism is serious harassment. Ordinary protected venting usually cannot justify discipline merely because it mentions school. Check the full pattern, educational context, rights, and justified school interests. Second, explain Drew: the misdemeanor website-terms access theory was unconstitutionally vague despite the serious harm. Third, distinguish Elonis’s statutory negligence rejection from Counterman’s later constitutional recklessness floor. Fourth, explain why an objective-only threat prosecution can chill protected expression. Subjective awareness supplies breathing room without requiring purpose as the constitutional minimum. Fifth, identify what a true-threat prosecutor must prove about the speaker. At least awareness and conscious disregard of a substantial threatening-meaning risk is required, alongside the applicable offense’s other elements. Do not extend that statement indiscriminately to every non-threat stalking theory. The complete lesson is careful separation of school authority, criminal requirements, constitutional protections, and platform decisions.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Landmark Court Decisions That Have Shaped How We Handle Online Bullying Today
What did Tinker v. Des Moines decide?
Can a school punish students for off-campus social media posts?
What did the Supreme Court decide in Counterman v. Colorado?
Why was Lori Drew acquitted in the Megan Meier case?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →