The line must be drawn

           Topics like this are hard to blog about. They're hard to even read. How can you even begin to comprehend a story like this? Innocent people, children nevertheless, feeling so pressured by others that they take their own life. This has got to be where the line is drawn in regards to cyberbullying.

Meier, 13, committed suicide after cyberbullying

           Let me begin by stating that this is not my opinion. I am merely playing devil's advocate for the sole purpose of following the guidelines set forth in the blog prompt. There could potentially be an argument supporting Pokin and the Journal's decision to withhold the names of the neighbors responsible for bullying this 13 year old girl into killing herself. From a strictly ethical perspective, what Pokin and the Journal did technically did a lot for the purpose of changing the way issues like this are handled. By not mentioning the names of the neighbors in the article, I think Pokin and the Journal actually did this issue a service. They changed the focus of attention with cyberbullying from attacking and seeking revenge on the neighbors to sympathy for the loss of life for a 13 year old girl victimized. As Pokin said in his column, "this story has been read across the nation [...] now is being read throughout the world. Local, state, and federal officials, in response, are looking at how laws can be changed." While it's awful to say, this situation can lend a hand in improving the way issues like this are handled. Maybe there is a new law that comes about or reform to a current law that does not thoroughly protect victims from cyberbullying, and the best that can come from this is that there is not another life lost over something so petty and ruthless. Again, while it is awful to say, Pokin and the Journal not releasing the names, focused the attention on change, turned Megan's story into a world lesson, and her name into a martyr for the cause.
           On the other end of the spectrum, I actually believe that the Post was acting within ethical responsibility when it released the names of the neighbors. While not breaking any laws, I do believe that the neighbors acted inhumanely and immorally. This was a 13 year old girl! The article tells us that the neighbors were "a woman, her daughter, and an 18 year old female employee." This would be disgusting for another 13 year old to do, let alone two supposed adults. You are supposed to be mature and set examples for the youth of society. What kind of a lesson is this? You victimize a 13 year old girl under the false pretense of a fake MySpace page? Imagine the ruthlessness of these messages. They were so devastating to the 13 year old's psyche that she took her own life. I believe that the Post did the correct thing here. By exposing the names of the neighbors, they make the community aware that they have social and moral deviants living within their confines. These neighbors should be shunned for victimizing this 13 year old like this. The Post brings the attention to the irresponsibility of these neighbors. They bring attention to the issue and the best that can be hoped for is that others see this example set forth by the neighbors and decide that they will never act the same way as the neighbors did. It's disgusting. While I do believe Pokin and the Journal should've released the names earlier, by it waiting until the Post did, I think that some good can still be achieved and hopefully will affect future changes in the legislation revolving around this topic.
            I think in this instance, there are a couple ethical issues that play into the perspectives I spoke about. Harm, justice, privacy, and community are all applicable in regards to Megan's cyberbullying. Harm and justice really go well with each other here. Speaking ethically, harm refers to the banning of something as a result of it causing harm. In this case, the reader learns in Malone's article that cyberbullying has no legislation attached to it. Harm and justice play so much into each other because with the worldwide exposure of this topic now that Megan's death occurred, Malone talks about how "local, state, and federal officials [...] are looking at how laws can be changed," and there is some new legislation in the works to prevent such a thing from happening. Maybe if the acts involved with cyberbullying were illegal, people like Megan's neighbors won't engage in it and one life could've been saved. Privacy and community also play into each other. By not adhering to the privacy of the neighbors, the Post can seemingly make the community a better, safer place. Like I previously stated, the community can look forward to having knowledge of people in their community intentionally verbally abusing and targeting children. The problem here is that the community has the right to know the names of individuals that intentionally victimized a child. Megan was only 13 years old. Malone tells us that at least 2 of the neighbors were above 18 years of age, making them adults. The privacy of the neighbors should not be honored, as the community needs to protect itself from predators that target children.
          I find the ethical perspective behind the Post is more compelling here than that of Pokin and the Journal. I strongly believe that the Post releasing the names was correct thing to do. These people victimized a 13 year old girl. They were adults and members of the community. The community had every right to know the names of them. They put the life of a youth at risk in verbally abusing her online relentlessly to the point of her taking her own life. I think that the absence of the names poses a huge danger to the children of that community. It's important that attention was paid to making this a worldwide issue in hopes of future legislation, but in regards to the community's immediate safety, it is a more significant piece that the Post released the names of the neighbors. Once again, they put the life and welfare of a child in danger, and should be scrutinized publicly for it.
            I, personally, do believe that social media is responsibility to intervene with cyberbullying. While it would be a tedious task to handle, I believe that sites like MySpace and Facebook have an obligation to the users to screen what is being put on their channels for others to consume. It's social media sites where cyberbullying takes place and they act as a forum for them. While there are many platforms for cyberbullying to take place on, the fact that social media sites are a commonly used one means that they do hold a moral and ethical obligation to monitor what's being posted on them. I think that the first step to this happening and social media sites taking some responsibility for their platforms being used for cyberbullying. Megan's story can hopefully shed some light on what needs to be changed and where the line needs to be drawn to avoid losing another life.