Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying Laws in Kentucky

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Cyberbullying
Conclusion
References

Introduction

With the rise in the role of the internet and online media in people’s lives, the exposure to the threats of the cyber-environment has also increased. Specifically, with the increase in the role of digital communication, the exposure to the threat of cybercrime, particularly, cyberstalking, has risen (Worsley, 2017). Although the current standards for addressing the problem of cyberstalking have a solid foundation of regulations against stalking in real life, improvements must be made to take the specifics of the online setting into account and safeguard people from online attacks.

Definition and Five Behaviors

Being a comparatively recent phenomenon, cyberstalking still lacks precision in its definition. Due to multiple overlaps in how stalking and cyberstalking manifest themselves, the subject matter is currently defined as the act of stalking occurring in the digital context (Kaur et al., 2021). However, the lack of consensus regarding the definition makes the current legal standards concerning cyberstalking somewhat vague.

The problems with defining the term have also caused issues with locating distinctive behavior types that can be identified as the main criteria and characteristics of cyberstalking. Despite also sharing certain similarities with regular stalking, cyberstalking also features unique characteristics predicated upon the use of digital tools (Wilson et al., 2021). Specifically, Kaur et al. (2021) single out sexting or sending sexually explicit content via messages, and online harassment as two key behaviors as typical for cybercriminals. Furthermore, Kaur et al. (2021) add that the specified behaviors are typically preceded by a display of affection via online tools. Other studies show that cyberstalking also manifests itself in threats made online.

Fourthly, the tendency to doxx victims is a common tactic among cyberstalkers, as the study by Nurse et al. (2018) shows. The concept of doxxing typically implies the search and disclosure of an individual’s personal information on the internet to harm the individual in question (Nurse et al., 2018). Finally, cyberstalkers often resort to blackmail as a means of achieving their goals (Wilson et al., 2021). Although the described behaviors do not represent the notion of cyberstalking fully, they embrace the broad range of threats that a victim of cyberstalking may encounter.

Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act

Since stalking is deemed to be a crime, several key measures have been developed to prevent it from occurring, as well as manage the cases of talking effectively. Namely, the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act has been in place since 1996 as the min measure for managing the issue (Elizondo et al., 2019). Since online stalking is defined as a type of stalking behavior, the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act (ISPA) of 1996 applies to the specified crime type as well (Elizondo et al., 2019). Namely, ISPA allows defining cyberstalking as a felony on an interstate level, therefore, making it an offense that is punishable by at least a year and a half in prison along with a substantial fine (Elizondo et al., 2019). Using the Act, each state sets the standards for managing cyberstalking-related cases, leading to a variety of measures being developed to prevent the issue of cyberstalking. However, having been designed specifically for addressing stalking as an act of physical harassment of an individual, ISPA lacks the considerations that would allow the regulation to function in the digital context. Namely, the measures against the availability of software and tools for detecting a victim’s personal information must be introduced into the current ISPA regulation to enhance online safety.

Cyberbullying

Despite the efforts made to eradicate bullying as a social phenomenon, it continues to affect numerous people. Moreover, bullying has percolated into the digital environment, causing participants in social networking to be exposed to multiple instances of cyberbullying and related issues. According to Kentucky laws, cyberbullying can be defined as “any unwanted verbal, physical, or social behavior among students that involves a real or perceived power imbalance and is repeated or has the potential to be repeated” (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). Therefore, the Kentucky regulations define cyberbullying solely from the perspective of relationships between students (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). The specified definition is quite restrictive since it does not take the instances of cyberbullying occurring to adults and young adults, who may also be victims of bullying (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.).

In Kentucky legislation, cyberbullying involves several types of prohibited behaviors. namely, as stated above, cyberbullying includes online harassment of an individual, which makes it a Class B misdemeanor (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). According to the current Kentucky anti-bullying law, cyberbullying also involves the threat of physical harm, as well as any form of intimidation, in general, through digital tools (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). Additionally, threats of humiliation and embarrassment perpetrated via digital tools to a victim are also deemed as an instance of cyberbullying according to the current Kentucky regulations (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). Covering most of the instances of cyberbullying, the specified regulations guarantee a certain amount of protection (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). According to the current Kentucky laws for Class B misdemeanors, cyberbullying may lead to up to 90 days in prison (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). Moreover, a substantial fine that may reach $250 may be imposed on a perpetrator (“Bullying laws in Kentucky,” n.d.). Therefore, the current regulations are quite stringent, yet they lack efficacy in preventing cyberbullying.

However, regarding providing safeguarding tools for potential victims, the Kentucky law against cyberbullying represents several flaws. Specifically, while the law benefits from the active involvement of parents in the issue, it also lacks approaches for extending support to victims (Kentucky Attorney General, n.d.). For instance, the current regulations do not provide frameworks for enhancing victims’ safety. Namely, the existing standards for addressing the instances of severe cyberbullying in Kentucky may allow the involvement of law enforcement agencies and the state police departments, yet the framework for psychological support for the victim and the following recovery from bullying has not been written into the Kentucky law (Kentucky Attorney General, n.d.). Therefore, opportunities for improving the support of victims must be introduced into Kentucky law. Particularly, various aspects of managing the outcomes of bullying must be addressed, which can be done by increasing the fine so that appropriate therapy could be provided for the victims.

Conclusion

Overall, the current approach to preventing and mitigating cyberbullying in Kentucky can be considered partially functioning. However, the Kentucky regulations could benefit from greater accuracy in defining cyberbullying, as well as introducing more rigid and effective control tools, even though the overall framework is quite viable. Therefore, additional amendments must be introduced into the legal framework to ensure that instances of bullying are properly addressed and documented accordingly. Specifically, it is vital to align the existing regulations to the technological advances and the changes in the cyber environment, introducing digital tools for legal mitigation of cyberbullying, as well as creating options for its effective detection and the identification of the bullies’ identities (Kentucky Attorney General, n.d.). Thus, a systemic approach to the prevention and management of bullying will be possible.

References

Bullying laws in Kentucky. (n.d.).

Elizondo, P., McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. (2019). A review of statutes and the role of the forensic psychiatrist in cyberstalking involving youth. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 47(2), 198-207. Web.

Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Tandon, A., Alzeiby, E. A., & Abohassan, A. A. (2020). A systematic literature review on cyberstalking. An analysis of past achievements and future promises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 1-15.

Kentucky Attorney General. (n.d.). Survivors council. Web.

Nurse, J. R. (2018). Cybercrime and you: How criminals attack and the human factors that they seek to exploit. In The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology (pp. 663-691), Oxford University Press.

Wilson, C., Sheridan, L., & Garratt-Reed, D. (2021). What is cyberstalking? A review of measurements.Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Worsley, J. D., Wheatcroft, J. M., Short, E., & Corcoran, R. (2017). Victims’ voices: Understanding the emotional impact of cyberstalking and individuals’ coping responses. Sage Open, 7(2).

Click Here To Order Now!