In history books, a stronger person always had an advantage over a weaker person, and the

concept of bullying became known. Bullying was limited to schools in a physical space, but due
to technological advancement in the digital world, the internet has become an evident area where
cyberbullying started. It was not until a case of suicide was registered for the first time in the
history of abuse on the internet that a teenager named Megan Meier committed suicide due to
harassment faced by one of her acquaintances. Columbine shootings are referred to as the
precursor to the bullying law framed by the federal government, as two shooters took revenge for
bullying by doing mass shootings on April 20, 1999. (Larkin, 2009).

Cyberbullying is seen to have complicated lives for children and teenagers, as they are easy
targets on social media. Children can be easily manipulated into doing things people take
advantage of, which has become an issue of grave concern. However, the prime concern is when
a child does not talk to family members or close friends about their problem. As unknown people
masquerade as a familiar faces on social media, it is not easy for lower-age groups to identify
them. When law agencies cannot control cyberbullying, perpetrators are often found stalking
young children into their trap and forcing them into doing unwanted things by blackmailing.
These events have not emerged suddenly, but there is a history of manipulation and blackmailing
of victims by cyberbullies. Cybercrime has multiple jurisdictions, so cyberbullying should have
been categorized as a severe crime because victims are known to commit suicide.

Several States in the United States have taken serious steps to counter bullying in schools,
totaling around 50 states. They have established laws, policies, and regulations to deter criminals
from cyberbullying. However, cyberbullying does not have decisive enactment in the books of
Law, and the federal agencies are known to have a federal law to govern cyberbullying. No
federal law addresses cyberbullying directly, and bullying is taken as harassment, overseen by
the federal civil rights department. (Affairs (ASPA), 2019). There are natural state laws
applicable to many states and various additional federal statutes that can be drawn to deal with
cyberbullying. However, given the gravity of a few incidents, direct federal-level measures to
handle cyberbullying across the United States are required.

Cyberbullying has not been taken seriously by law enforcement agencies even after scores of
evidence and cases fought in court, as victims' families have constantly been pressuring courts to
take action. The prime reason for discrimination in this regard is ignoring claims from lower
social backgrounds, age, disability, religion, or gender. Therefore, discrimination can be cited as
one reason for not enacting cyber laws related to bullying in schools or other public places. On
the other hand, reticent victims do not register complaints to law enforcement authorities, which
skews the number of cyberbullying cases in the United States. Specific categories of people can
be forced to withdraw cases before registering. For instance, for fear of being stereotyped by
their peers, teenagers do not complain about being harassed or blackmailed on social media.

Similarly, individuals belonging to the LGBT community do not have the confidence to stand up
to the injustice the digital media faces on their sexuality. In a report of 2019, 36.5 percent of
Ohio students reported being cyberbullied at some point in their life. (Gerwig-Parker et al.,
2020). As victims are dealing with extended bouts of psychological problems from
cyberbullying, PTSD is reported regularly. These concerns should have raised awareness among
campaigners, but because of the inability to communicate about the social issues connected with
bullying on the internet, many cases often go unreported. It was found that more than one-third
of cyberbullies (29%) and one-third of cyber victims (35%), as well as a similar proportion
(28%) of those who were both, reported being affected by direct or indirect PTSD. (Mateu et al.,
2020).

Nevertheless, countless incidences of cyberbullying cases have been hidden without taking any
appropriate action against the bully. If there were direct and proper laws, one would not have to
wait for physical or tangible punishment. Victims to have faced cyberbullying experience
depression, loneliness, and social anxiety. (Grene, 2003) (Juvonen et al., 2003).

Cyberbullying is directly relational within the purview of federal acts such as the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Education Amendments Act of 1972, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Americans with
Disabilities Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), etc. Many state legislations
have been enacted to protect children from cyberbullying, and a few historical efforts are
documented. The adjoining rights have created a framework to protect victims from the potential
danger of overpowering perpetrators on the internet—the famous Megan Meier case of
cyberbullying highlights the classic case of being bullied by an unknown person. Whereas
Megan believed she was communicating with an ally, it was an imposter impersonating a 16-
year-old boy. A fake Myspace account opened in the name of Josh Evans led Megan to commit
suicide when the impersonator revealed that the world would be better without her. Linda
T. Sánchez presented the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (H.R. 6123) on May 22,
2008, during the 110th Congress. The bill's precedents were the Bullying and Gang Reduction
for Improved Education Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act. (Vines, 2015). The bill's
purpose is to modify title 18, United States Code, concerning cyberbullying (H.R. 6123, 2008).
The bullying act had seen defiance in the history of America, and Johnston was a key figure in
putting forward a unified approach. The bill was termed the 'Stand up for all students Act,' which
required all schools to deal with bullying acts by campaigning against them seriously. (Menesini
& Salmivalli, 2017). Furthermore, another legislation named 'AB-34 - The Safe Place to Learn
Act' was enacted to protect against bullying in schools. This legislation protected children from
harassment and bullying in schools, and parents could readily access the same information.
Similarly, David's Law mandates every public school, among many other things, must include
cyberbullying in their county policies and create and enforce district-wide policies and practices
that prohibit harassment of a student. Retribution against everyone who gives information about
a bullying occurrence is prohibited. The federal government should have established legislation
taking into account the breadth and applicability of these state laws and the difficulty victims
experience in proceeding using indirect statutes.
Cyberbullying cannot be taken lightly by the victim, and specific measures can be taken as a
precaution. However, the victim should consider seeking the help of the judicial team by filing a
lawsuit against the perpetrator. The first step can be talking to family members or a counselor so
that a witness documents the story. Similarly, as a precautionary measure, blocking the offender
and reporting the behavior to social media admins would reduce damage. In addition, text
messages indicating intimidation or blackmailing can be saved as evidence for future action.
Filing a lawsuit against the offender could assist in getting justice for the victim. Although
lawsuits involve costs in normal litigation, the emotional benefits from them far outweigh the
financial loss. The Judiciary bench has started taking cyberbullying seriously after considering
the psychological and emotional stress a victim has to go through. (MacLeod, 2013).
Furthermore, the victim can also refer to federal stalking law to seek justice for the wrongdoing.
If the perpetrator is found guilty under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), then the party may have to face up to a
five-year sentence in prison and pay a fine of up to $250,000. A number of states have their
statute for dealing with bullying and online bullying cases. For example, one of the states,
Montana, explicitly uses a stalking Law to prosecute cyberbullying offenders. An example of
stalking involves harassing someone using photos and text messages online to cause injury or
harm. The victim may talk to law enforcement officials for fear of stalking a perpetrator under
cyberbullying. The same penal code of 18 U.S.C. 875(c) could be charged, as federal laws do not
allow people to use electronic means to threaten or harm someone. However, current legislation
and reforms are insufficient to cover cyberbullying, as there are inherent limitations in
communication between victim and counselor, and victim confidentiality cannot be maintained.
Therefore, existing laws and statutes cannot cover psychological aspects, as cyberbullying does
not take into account bullying prevalence rates and psychological distress. (Samara et al., 2017).
Similarly, victims of cyberbullying do not get adequate compensation, as the laws and statutes
have loopholes caused by a lack of support from law-making authorities.

Cyberbullying has not been readily accepted as a crime by many Americans, as they rather do
not regard it as a gross crime when compared to other crimes of a similar category.
Cyberbullying may have led to nasty circumstances, but due to a lack of support from law
agencies, and apathy from American citizens, there is a general consensus that it is not a serious
crime. Whereas cyberbullying is registered as a crime under the Law, citizens do not have an
issue with it as it has not had a major impact on their lives. Teenagers and younger children may
have faced cyberbullying at some point in their lives, but they are found to have pressured the
local or federal government to enact anti-cyberbullying laws in America. A commonly accepted
fact among adults is that cyberbullying may have led to victims committing suicide, but there
were other factors contributing to it, and it cannot be directly related to cyberbullying. The
contributing factors to being bullied on the internet could be based on various laws of
victimization, such as the situation or location of the victim in the Act. For instance, victims
could be overpowered by their situations, such as financial or psychological conditions under
which they would have taken the decision. One of the reasons for overlooking cyberbullying as
any kind of crime is not considering it an epidemic. The overlap between online and offline
bullying has a different perspective, and the emotional wrongdoing of the victim cannot be
justified to have a ripple effect on their peers. (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012). Therefore, individual
perspectives of victims cannot be generalized, in which cyberbullying can be viewed as an
epidemic.

However, cyberbullying cannot be encouraged or leave it on its own to resolve. The impact on
the victim's mental health cannot be ignored, as it has long-term consequences on psychological
wellbeing. Teenagers and other vulnerable age groups have a higher propensity to commit
suicide or murder if immediate help is not sought. Therefore, cyberbullying cannot be kept
behind closed doors, and concerned authorities must take responsibility for enacting stricter laws
to deter the offender and save the victim.

Even after scores of evidence and cases contested in court, law enforcement authorities have not
taken cyberbullying seriously, despite victims' families consistently urging courts to take action.
In this regard, the primary source of discrimination is the failure to consider instances from lower
socioeconomic origins, age, disability, religion, or gender. PTSD has been frequently
documented as victims have been discovered to be suffering from extended spells of
psychological issues due to cyberbullying. These concerns should have heightened activists'
awareness, but many cases go unreported due to the incapacity to speak about the social
difficulties associated with internet bullying. Many state laws have been adopted to protect
minors against cyberbullying, and there have been a few historical efforts. The accompanying
rights have established a framework to safeguard victims from the internet's potential dangers of
domineering criminals. The well-known Megan Meier cyberbullying case exemplifies the
standard instance of being bullied by an unknown person. The Safe Place to Learn Act was
passed to combat bullying in schools. David's Law requires all public schools, among other
things, to include cyberbullying in their county policies and to develop and enforce district-wide
policies and practices that prevent student harassment. Cyberbullying should not be taken lightly
by the victim, and certain precautions can be implemented. However, the victim should consider
enlisting the assistance of the legal system by bringing a lawsuit against the culprit. Many
Americans have not readily embraced cyberbullying as a crime because they do not consider it a
serious crime compared to other similar crimes. Cyberbullying, on the other hand, cannot be
promoted or left to resolve on its own. The victim's mental health cannot be overlooked since it
has long-term ramifications for psychological wellbeing. The scale of cyberbullying has only
grown almost every month, emphasizing the need for specific federal legislation to address
concerns of bullying and harassment online.
Affairs (ASPA), A. S. for P. (2019, September 24). Federal Laws. StopBullying.gov.
https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws/federal

Gerwig-Parker, L. A., Tromski-Klingshirn, D., Kolssak, R., & Miller, J. D. (2020). Cyberbullying and Ohio
Schools: A Social Justice Framework to Understand and Create Change. Leadership and Research in
Education, 5(2), 50–77. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1283097

Greene, M. B. (2003). Counseling and Climate Change as Treatment Modalities for Bullying in School.
International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 25(4), 293–302.
https://doi.org/10.1023/b:adco.0000005528.59128.32

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Neither an epidemic nor a rarity. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 539–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.706448

H.R.6123--110th Congress: Megan meier cyberbullying prevention action of 2008. (2008). Retrieved
from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6123:

Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying Among Young Adolescents: The Strong, the
Weak, and the Troubled. PEDIATRICS, 112(6), 1231–1237. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.112.6.1231

Larkin, R. W. (2009). The Columbine Legacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1309–1326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332548

MacLeod, H. (2013). Legal Studies. Alternative Law Journal, 38(2), 125–125.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x1303800214

Mateu, A., Pascual-Sánchez, A., Martinez-Herves, M., Hickey, N., Nicholls, D., & Kramer, T. (2020).
Cyberbullying and post-traumatic stress symptoms in UK adolescents. Archives of Disease in Childhood.
https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-318716

Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective
interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740

Samara, M., Burbidge, V., El Asam, A., Foody, M., Smith, P., & Morsi, H. (2017). Bullying and
Cyberbullying: Their Legal Status and Use in Psychological Assessment. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121449

Vines, J. (2015). AN EMBEDDED CASE STUDY OF THE PROPOSED MEGAN MEIER CYBERBULLYING
PREVENTION STATUTE & THE PROPOSED TYLER CLEMENTI HIGHER EDUCATION ANTI-HARASSMENT
STATUTE. All Dissertations. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1526

‌
‌