Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

What's wrong with outlawing bullying?

By Danny Cevallos
updated 7:43 AM EDT, Wed June 18, 2014
Danny Cevallos says anti-bullying legislation encroaches upon freedom of speech
Danny Cevallos says anti-bullying legislation encroaches upon freedom of speech
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Danny Cevallos: I respectfully dissent with Mark O'Mara on issue of bullying laws
  • Cevallos: Anti-bullying legislation encroaches upon freedom of speech
  • He says such laws invite costly litigation and give kids blemished juvenile records
  • Cevallos: Laws are not the cure for every social ill, no matter how good they seem

Editor's note: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and partner at Cevallos & Wong, practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Follow him on Twitter @CevallosLaw. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Recently, the venerable Mark O'Mara wrote an op-ed on CNN.com calling for a law against bullying. I find myself in an unenviable position, that of respectfully dissenting with a leading legal mind whom I greatly admire. O'Mara writes compellingly in support of anti-bullying legislation.

I am anti-anti-bullying legislation.

Let me explain. While legislation designed to stamp out bullying may make us feel better inside, such laws by definition encroach upon fundamental freedoms of speech and constitutional requirements that laws not be vague or overly broad. What's more, they may seek to outlaw that which may be beyond the purview of the crimes code: It may be the case that human law is simply no match for the law of nature.

Danny Cevallos
Danny Cevallos

Don't get me wrong, O'Mara is right in calling attention to the scourge of bullying. Bullying was bad enough in 1985 when a juvenile delinquent named Duffy was administering atomic noogies from the back of my school bus. Now, with advent of the Internet, bullies can do things that go viral, greatly magnifying the impact of their damage.

Dr. Dan Olweus, a leading researcher of bullying, defines bullying as:

1. Aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions

2. A pattern of behavior repeated over time

3. An imbalance of power or strength

That definition casts a wide net. Similarly, the strictest state anti-bullying statutes incorporate broad definitions of bullying. They also dragoon school personnel into anti-bullying policing and training roles, on top of their regular duties. It's inevitable that heightened "awareness" of bullying will result in more incidents being classified as "bullying."

And when teachers are encouraged to err on the side of safety and report a borderline case of bullying, while facing discipline for failing to report, the effect of the incentive is clear. Overall, we're going to see a broad new swath of behavior falling within the definition of bullying. Simply put: We create more bullies by broadening the definition of bullying.

As schools and legislators continue to target bullying by increasingly including speech within the definition, the forces of anti-bullying legislation collide with the legal equivalent of the immovable object: the Constitution -- specifically, the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech protects the public expression of ideas, free from governmental interference. A statute is unconstitutionally broad if it chills a substantial amount of protected speech, even pursuant to a law with a legitimate purpose. Vagueness will also invalidate a law. A law is impermissibly vague if the rest of us cannot understand, from the language of the law, what exactly is prohibited speech or behavior.

A law is vague if it doesn't lay out specific standards so that administrators who enforce the laws against the rest of us are prevented from doing so in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. Anti-bullying legislation seeks to outlaw people from saying mean things. Meanwhile, a law that criminalized saying "mean things" would almost certainly be unconstitutionally vague.

Most—but not all—bullying cases typically involve children and some school nexus. It is true that the Supreme Court has warned that the constitutional rights of students are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults. So schools probably have more authority to regulate student speech than the government would have to regulate adult speech.

At the same time, the Supreme Court has also made clear that students do not shed their constitutional freedoms of speech or expression when they set foot on campus.

Public schools may regulate student speech that threatens a concrete and "substantial disruption," but even the Supreme Court cases on the subject do not provide much guidance on what exactly constitutes a substantial disruption.

The bottom line is that as anti-bullying statutes continue to evolve and attempt to broaden their reach, there is a greater likelihood that they will suppress constitutional though likely cruel student speech. These laws will likely invite costly litigation and give undeserving children the blemish of a juvenile record, only to ultimately be struck down.

Anti-bullying legislation certainly has its heart in the right place. However, so, too, would an attempt to outlaw anxiety or meanness. It may be the case that some things are outside the jurisdiction and purview of mankind's puny laws.

After all, the very definition of bullying offered by the experts incorporates the concept of an imbalance of power. Yet, imbalance of power is at the core of almost every natural relationship. It's why we eat lobsters and they don't eat us. It's why we have bosses and employees. Power difference fuels capitalism, life ambition and survival itself.

That's not to say bullying should be tolerated. It shouldn't. But outlawing bullying is not the answer. It stretches already thinly stretched school resources, and imposes unreasonable duties on school administrators. More importantly, it is constitutionally suspect and victim oriented. Subjective approaches to outlawing speech are likely vague and overly broad.

Bullying in some form has been a part of the human experience since time immemorial. That doesn't mean it is socially acceptable—on the contrary, bullies should be shunned. But laws are not always the cure for our every social ill, no matter how good they make us feel inside.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 8:37 AM EDT, Tue October 28, 2014
Errol Louis says forced to choose between narrow political advantage and the public good, the governors showed they are willing to take the easy way out over Ebola.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Eric Liu says with our family and friends and neighbors, each one of us must decide what kind of civilization we expect in the United States. It's our responsibility to set tone and standards, with our laws and norms
updated 7:45 AM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Sally Kohn says the UNC report highlights how some colleges exploit student athletes while offering little in return
updated 3:04 PM EDT, Sun October 26, 2014
Terrorists don't represent Islam, but Muslims must step up efforts to counter some of the bigotry within the world of Islam, says Fareed Zakaria
updated 9:02 AM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
Scott Yates says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy, reduce heart attacks and get you more sleep
updated 8:32 PM EDT, Sun October 26, 2014
Reza Aslan says the interplay between beliefs and actions is a lot more complicated than critics of Islam portray
updated 7:19 AM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Julian Zelizer says control of the Senate will be decided by a few close contests
updated 8:12 AM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
The response of some U.S. institutions that should know better to Ebola has been anything but inspiring, writes Idris Ayodeji Bello.
updated 5:01 PM EDT, Wed October 22, 2014
Paul Callan says the grand jury is the right process to use to decide if charges should be brought against the police officer
updated 12:19 PM EDT, Thu October 23, 2014
Theresa Brown says the Ebola crisis brought nurses into the national conversation on health care. They need to stay there.
updated 6:35 PM EDT, Tue October 21, 2014
Patrick Hornbeck says don't buy the hype: The arguments the Vatican used in its interim report would have virtually guaranteed that same-sex couples remained second class citizens
updated 12:30 PM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
The Swedes will find sitting on the fence to be increasingly uncomfortable with Putin as next door neighbor, writes Gary Schmitt
updated 12:32 PM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
The Ottawa shooting pre-empted Malala's appearances in Canada, but her message to young people needs to be spread, writes Frida Ghitis
updated 9:48 PM EDT, Sat October 25, 2014
Paul Begala says Iowa's U.S. Senate candidate, Joni Ernst, told NRA she has right to use gun to defend herself--even from the government. But shooting at officials is not what the Founders had in mind
updated 6:08 PM EDT, Thu October 23, 2014
John Sutter: Why are we so surprised the head of a major international corporation learned another language?
updated 5:54 PM EDT, Thu October 23, 2014
Jason Johnson says Ferguson isn't a downtrodden community rising up against the white oppressor, but it is looking for justice
updated 12:21 PM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
Sally Kohn says a video of little girls dressed as princesses using the F-word very loudly to condemn sexism is provocative. But is it exploitative?
updated 4:06 PM EDT, Tue October 21, 2014
Timothy Stanley says Lewinsky is shamelessly playing the victim in her affair with Bill Clinton, humiliating Hillary Clinton again and aiding her critics
updated 10:14 AM EDT, Thu October 23, 2014
Imagine being rescued from modern slavery, only to be charged with a crime, writes John Sutter
updated 12:00 PM EDT, Tue October 21, 2014
Tidal flooding used to be a relatively rare occurrence along the East Coast. Not anymore, write Melanie Fitzpatrick and Erika Spanger-Siegfried.
updated 7:35 AM EDT, Tue October 21, 2014
Carol Costello says activists, writers, politicians have begun discussing their abortions. But will that new approach make a difference on an old battleground?
updated 9:12 AM EDT, Tue October 21, 2014
Sigrid Fry-Revere says the National Organ Transplant Act has caused more Americans to die waiting for an organ than died in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT