Evidently some advocacy groups are lobbying for a new law to curb cyberbullying (via Cnet). Although they take the position that parents are the first and best lines of defense (see their list of 10 steps for families - PDF) they still think that Congressional intervention is in order.

I disagree. Strongly. Here’s why:

1. It’s another costly and unnecessary program. Their call is for a federally-mandated anti-bullying program of instruction in schools. That means that yet another chunk of each child’s school day will be consumed with instruction for an activity that the minority of students actually: a) are engaged in; or b)are victims of. This mandatory program will have to be funded, presumably with Federal Funds. Since the budget deficit is already at historically high levels, that will surely mean that other programs such as athletics or the arts will be cut to pay for yet another mandated program.
2. Parents have absolute control over all forms of cyberbullying. They pay the cell phone bills, they pay for internet access, they supply the computers and phones over which this activity takes place. It’s a pretty simple matter to simply remove those items. Stop paying for them. The kids that are bullied online will no longer be online to be bullied. Alternatively, they can just turn off the offending features — block text messages, IM and other methods of transmitting or receiving bullying messages.
3. The approach is negative instead of positive. If children were taught: a) that the Internet is a wonderful place that they are responsible for keeping that way; and b) that they have been entrusted with the responsibility to use the power and resources of the Internet wisely; and c) that technology is completely within their control, most would not only be better citizens of the Net, we would also have kids who were more than mere consumers. They would be preservers, advancers, visionaries. Not all of them, but enough so that all of us could reap the benefits of this generation’s creative power.

Now I will freely admit an idealistic bent to item 3. Also to an extent, item 2. But, here’s the thing: Our kids are being well-educated about what we’re doing to the planet and the environment and guess what? They’re motivated to recycle, to take care of the environment. Much more motivated than my generation is, for the most part. They’re the ones who understand much more clearly what our dependence on fossil fuel is doing and are motivated to change it. Why? Because they’ve been taught! Via the media, the Internet, and yes…also the schools, but in the context of a core subject rather than a “special program”.

The same is true for technology. I wrote a few months ago about my frustration with Dancergirl’s “technology class”. The one where she had to handwrite definitions of terms like BIOS, RAM, DVD, CD-ROM, and motherboard. That class never got better. She spent 3 months looking up definitions and handwriting them. And by the way, this was a so-called “elective”. (It really wasn’t elective because all of the kids had to take the class in a trimester rotation of three classes that were more drudge than enriching) What a crummy way to give kids an introduction to technology! My theory is this: the teacher had tech limitations and taught the class within her own scope of understanding without regard to what it REALLY means to use technology.

Now Dancergirl is pretty savvy. She has her own laptop, blog, Flickr account, has built a couple of Flickr communities (the largest of which now numbers well over 100 members), and a cell phone. I added text messaging to her cell account last June after she proved that she was a responsible person with technology, well over a year after I got the phone for her. That doesn’t mean I don’t monitor usage and content; I do. And that’s the key: I DO IT.

Some might argue that I’m in the minority on that monitoring, watching thing. But I don’t think that’s necessarily true in this case, partly because parents pay for these little technological wonders and whatever hits the pocketbook also hits their attention faster. The other reason that I don’t think it’s necessarily true is because there is so much incredibly negative coverage in the mainstream media of the “myspace dangers” etc. yadayada that parents are hypersensitive now and really ignorant.

People who bully online are also likely to bully in person. It may be that they are more vitriolic when anonymous and unaccountable; however, they will still bully. As parents, do we look to the government to educate the students about the dangers of bullies? No…we do look to the schools to help protect our kids from in-person bullies (something many schools do miserably), but it’s not something I’m seeing a lot of advocacy groups hammer.

I really believe we have to stop shouting out for laws. DOPA was the last ill-advised result of this attitude. That attitude says this to me:

“Parent, you are not capable of educating or raising your child to be a good citizen on the planet or the Internet. It is, therefore, the job of the government to step in and educate your child with content we approve in a manner that we see fit.”

Imagine someone saying that to you. Isn’t it offensive? It should be.

Those of us who are hip to online life can help those who aren’t. We don’t have to sit back and settle for yet another “education program” that takes our kids away from core subject learning to yet another sensitivity session on something like online bullying.

Oh…and cyberbullying isn’t limited to kids. Just ask Maryam Scoble.

Technorati Tags: cyberbullying, DOPA, online safety

Sign the Petition to Save Your Space