The constitution, unfortunately, sides with the judge. The premise of the justice system is their judges are impartial and infallible. Of course, no one truly believes this, however, so further steps are put in place should mistakes be made. This is the reason for courts of appeal. If their prosecutors feel that the verdict was out of line they will have to appeal to a higher court.

In regards to this particular case, there is no direct constitutional premise for cyberbullying. However, there is direct support for freedom of speech. The constitution expressly puts forth freedom of speech, even though supreme courts still go back and forth over exactly what that means. That said courts have decided it does not include the right to

To incite actions that would harm others such as shouting fire in a crowded theater (Byron, 2017). Freedom of speech tends to get hazy in a manner where the speech infringes on someone else or causes harm.

To make or distribute obscene materials which has its history in Roth v. United States which happened in 1957. This case made history due to placing limits on what could be accessed to the general public (Strossen,2013). This is seen still in practice by not having magazines such as Playboy at check out counters along with Vanity Fair. 

It could be argued that the bullies may have overstepped these bounds, but it would have to be proven in court. Furthermore, since the judge already threw out the case, it would have to be presented as new evidence which would warrant consideration from a higher court of appeals.

Do you agree or disagree with this writing and why or why not? Add some facts and references. 1/2 page