Activity 8:Legal contexts and digital identities

Dilemma image, Creative Commons Image courtesy of https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/6322051654_d88cdf7c31_o_d.jpg

Dilemma: How to deal with the following incident...?

Student's perspective

A normally good student posts a satirical self-made video which parodies a teacher's (over)reaction to other students with exaggerated and hyperbolic claims. The student intended the video as a cathartic and humorous response to what they perceive (in their immature perspective) to be a overly strict or draconian teacher's consequence to a classroom incident. The satirical and hyperbolic dramatisation surreal departure from the facts of the incident, which the student observed, and could potentially defame the teacher who was identified or (if taken literally) make false allegations to the teacher's behaviour.

Teacher's Perspective
A student posts a video online which makes defamatory remarks about a teacher's actions in class and appears to make claims and false allegations about the teacher's behaviour. This is done a form of cyberbullying against the staff member. The teacher is concerned than their reputation has been brought into disrepute with false allegations, which could affect their teacher's registration and employment. 

The teacher contacts the school, Netsafe and PPTA for legal advise. The teacher wants to be exonerated, the video destroyed, the child to be expelled as a punishment and deterent (to send out a strong message) but does not want to draw any more attention to it as they fear it could go viral.

The School's Response
The school becomes aware of the social media video through student chatter. The teacher targeted is understandably distressed. This constitutes 'harm' caused to the staff member through 'serious emotional distress' and they take the incident seriously. Netsafe have recently published a guide to Cyberbullying and Online Harrassment  (Netsafe, September 22, 2015) which recognises 'harm' as include 'serious emotional distress'.

The school immediately contacts the parents of the child who posted the video. In the interim, the child is removed from class and separated from peers. That evening the parents are invited into school for a conference with SLT to discuss the serious nature of the incident. The parents were not aware the video had been made. 

The parents discuss the incident with the child. The video is removed from social networks and deleted from home PCs. The teacher is concerned that once it is 'out there' it cannot be properly deleted as it is easily copies or shared. The school, the teacher and the parents contact Netsafe. Netsafe had not received a complaint like this before and there was no clear precedent. Netsafe now have a page which addresses defamation https://www.netsafe.org.nz/defamation-and-false-allegations/ 

Netsafe now state: "Taking a defamation case is a big undertaking, and you will need to engage a lawyer. Defamation is the publication of a statement about someone that lowers him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, where no legal defence is available. Defamation Law applies to publications on the internet."

The teacher seeks advise from a lawyer. This is outside the lawyer's normal practice. The child is too young to prosecute. The parents were legally responsible but were unaware of the incident until it was reported. Whilst supportive of their child, the parents are able to see  the school's dilemma.

The school does not wish to take legal proceedings, which would demand evidence to be presented which would only further highlight the allegedly defamatory online video publication.

The student is stood down internally in school as a consequence. This limits the attention drawn. The parents meet with a representative of the Board and SLT. The parents and staff talk to the student to explain how serious it is and that the child could be expelled BUT... (in a restorative justice approach to teach empathy) they explain how the consequences of publishing online are far more serious than if an offensive poster had been put up in the corridor or than if a student had stood up in class in front of peers to offend the teacher. 

The school keeps the teacher and child apart for the duration of the week. The child writes, under guidance from their parents, a letter of apology to the teacher. The child is instructed to not discuss this further with their peers. 

At the time of the incident the school had not anticipated this sort of incident, which occurred outside of school time using the student's own equipment. 

As a result, the school's internet use policy is reviewed and rewritten to include the prohibition of recording staff or students without their permission, cyberbullying or the negative use of social media / online publishing to bring the school, staff or other students into disrepute.

For consideration of all of the parties concerned this incident will remain anonymous and I cannot identify the school. 

In reference to the Teacher's Code of Ethics, 'the shoe was on the other foot' in the case study above it was the student's behaviour towards the teacher and the schools actions to safe gaurd the staff member that were called into the spotlight. It was because the school sought to make this student's mistake / poor choice a learning opportunity, mindful of the individuals age and ability that they can be seen to exemplify the opening aims of the Code of Ethics:

"Teachers registered to practice in New Zealand are committed to the attainment of the highest standards of professional service in the promotion of learning by those they teach, mindful of the learner's ability, cultural background, gender, age or stage of development.

This complex professional task is undertaken in collaboration with colleagues, learners, parents/guardians and family/whānau, as well as with members of the wider community.
The professional interactions of teachers are governed by four fundamental principles:
Autonomy to treat people with rights that are to be honoured and defended,

• Justice to share power and prevent the abuse of power,
• Responsible care to do good and minimise harm to others,
• Truth to be honest with others and self.

"


References:
Code of Ethics, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.educationcouncil.org.nz/required/ethics/codeofethics.stm
Netsafe, September 22, 2015. Cyberbullying and Online Harrassment. Retrieved from https://www.netsafe.org.nz/cyberbullying-and-online-harassment/

Netsafe, September 22, 2015. Harmful Communications - Defamation and false allegations
Retrieved from https://www.netsafe.org.nz/defamation-and-false-allegations/ 

Question:

Activity 8:Legal contexts and digital identities

Create a blog post where you identify an ethical dilemma in your own
practice linked to digital or online access or activity. Explain the dilemma
and discuss either:
● how you would address the potential issue if it occurred in your
own practice
or (if relevant):
● an actual situation that you have knowledge of, and how it was
resolved.
The discussion should be in relation to either the guidelines of your
organisation on online practice or the code of ethics for registered
teachers.