back to article Ladies and trolls: Should we make cyberbullying a crime? – Ireland

Ireland’s top legal watchdog is asking for public opinion on whether a new crime of cyber-bullying should be introduced. Members of the public have another two weeks to respond to the independent Law Reform Commission’s (LRC) public consultation on cyberbullying, privacy and reputation. The Commission’s job is to advise the …

  1. TheWeddingPhotographer

    Age is an issue, and just how do you measure this?

    The biggest issue here is the age of the offender. A large percentage of the bullies and recipients are minors.

    However, yes, it ought to be a crime, and if this trickles down and alters the way parents supervise children, that would be a good thing too.

    The next issue is tangibility... When does a joke become serious?, how many times is "pestering"? What an average person may brush off as negligible may be harmful to a vulnerable person etc. etc.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Age is an issue, and just how do you measure this?

      Why do I have a feeling that the only people prosecuted under this law will be those "bullying" Irish politicians, the church or American corporations with HQs in Ireland

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: Age is an issue, and just how do you measure this?

        Why do I have a feeling that the only people prosecuted...

        Ah, you've seen through their ruse

    2. Zog_but_not_the_first

      Re: Age is an issue, and just how do you measure this?

      I was bullied in the playground. Can I bring an action?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    While no form of bullying is pleasant...

    ... no one is forced to use twitter or facebook. They're just online toys, not an essential part of life - unlike having to turn up to school every day and then maybe getting punched in the face depending on what mood the resident year psycho is in, as happened to friends of mine. If someone is being bullied online then go to another website.

    Plus it seems to me we have enough laws to cover harassment (in the UK, don't know about ireland but I suspect its similar) so I don't see why there needs to be something specific to online bullying. The medium should be irrelevant.

    1. TheWeddingPhotographer

      Re: While no form of bullying is pleasant...

      I agree.. The sad reality is that Social Media "Is a must have" part of any western child's (and most adults) lives nowadays, as is a smartphone and all the knock-on therein.

      As a 40 something, it is quite easy to deride this, as I grew up without these things.. Unfortunately, unless there is a seismic cultural shift, these platforms 24/7/anywhere communication are here to stay

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: While no form of bullying is pleasant...

        "The sad reality is that Social Media "Is a must have" part of any western child's (and most adults) lives nowadays"

        Well regardless of its cultural importance (or not) - if you go into a garden and a dog bites you , you don't keep going back into the same garden even if some of your friends play there because the dog doesn't mind them.

        1. TheWeddingPhotographer

          Re: While no form of bullying is pleasant...

          "Well regardless of its cultural importance (or not) - if you go into a garden and a dog bites you , you don't keep going back into the same garden even if some of your friends play there because the dog doesn't mind them."

          But they do, (I don't get it either). An element of this is that the bully/victim relationship is not 1:1 it is 1: many which then drags the victim back in front of the bully

        2. ItsNotMe
          Thumb Up

          @boltar

          How true.

          Social Media a "must have"? Hardly. The true "sad reality" is the fact that so many people use these crap sites in the first place. They only serve to hasten the dumbing down of society. And, sadly, they are doing that very well.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ... if you go into a garden and a dog bites you ...

          But at some point, so many people use this notional "garden" that it becomes more like a high street or public park, whether or not the street or park are privately owned or not. My local Tesco has signs all over its carpark pointing out that it is private property ("no right of way", etc). But does that mean hateful or bullying posters on each carpark streetlight and/or trolley bay require no action? Just because we could follow your logic (as I understand it) and say that the target can avoid them by just choosing not to go there? Do they have to go to a different supermarket now? Wait by themselves outside the boundary if they happen to pass by with a friend who wants to nip in to buy some milk? Because of someone else and their anti-social behaviour?

          Surely the argument here is about how we work out where to draw the line, and how, in the new(ish) domain of the net? Surely it's unreasonable that all online abuse - no matter how extreme - can (and should) just be avoided by the target knowing where it is -- in advance!? -- and not browsing there. How do we decide when your "garden" has become, in practise, a public space? When does robust dialog and a bit of banter on internet site X become actionable abuse on site X?

          1. P. Lee

            Re: ... if you go into a garden and a dog bites you ...

            Cyberspace is not a space. It is a bad metaphor from when we thought VR was the future of data-processing and TRON was all the rage.

            More laws are almost always a bad idea. Laws are always a bad idea when its left to the victim to determine if a crime has taken place or not. Laws to protect people from hurt feelings are the sign of a moral, political and legal system in terminal decline. Yes there are tragedies, but that doesn't make the legal system the correct tool for dealing with the issues.

            1. Ole Juul

              Re: ... if you go into a garden and a dog bites you ...

              Cyberspace is not a space.

              This.

              Yes there are tragedies, but that doesn't make the legal system the correct tool for dealing with the issues.

              Agreed. The legal system is indeed the wrong place to deal with a lot of things. Unfortunately, it's far too easy to make laws. What we need is a law against making laws .... oh wait ...

              1. Suricou Raven

                Re: ... if you go into a garden and a dog bites you ...

                "What we need is a law against making laws .... oh wait ..."

                America tried that with their Bill of Rights. It's worked out pretty well, despite politicians finding countless loopholes and workarounds.

    2. Sir Sham Cad

      Re: no one is forced to use twitter or facebook.

      Nor are people forced to have a website or an email address. However, it's increasingly difficult to function, especially if you're self employed, for example, without the use of social media.

      If you remember some of the examples given as to why being forced to use your real name on Google+ (also Facebook) was bad then it follows that any breach of your privacy on social media is just as bad. The most recent example being the disgusting doxxing attacks carried out in the pursuit of "ethics in gaming journalism" *cough*.

      It's not as simple as "I'm being harrased/stalked/bullied on Facebook, I'll just move to Ello instead".

      Remember, also, that in some cases the cyber bullies are also those same bullies you can't avoid at school.

      The reason the medium is relevant is that Law relies heavily on wording and Case Law. When the medium changes to something new that wasn't thought about in the original draft and/or has little to no case law to go on, there's essentially little to nothing to go on in order to bring a successful prosecution. There's also the difference in scale. If BT erroneously publish my telephone number in the business directory when I've opted out of the residential phone book then the potential privacy breach is maybe the tens of thousands (no idea, just pulling handy numbers out of my arse for illustrative purposes) but if someone sticks my number in a public post on Facebook to invite harrassment or otherwise to cause me grief, then the potential breach is the number of people on Facebook plus anywhere it gets reposted (Reddit, Twitter, 4Chan etc...) and that's enormous. A potential that just isn't taken into account in current harassment laws.

      So, in my opinion anyway, I think it does need either new laws or old laws being extended.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: While no form of bullying is pleasant...

      The problem isn't whether you go to the site or whether you keep returning.

      If somebody sets up a fake profile in your name and posts compromising images or puts "words in your mouth", which are embarrassing or offensive and could cause you problems with your family, friends, work colleagues or people in the area where you live or work, then it doesn't matter whether you visit the site or not, if your friends, family etc. use the site regularly and see thos images or read those comments.

      You may try to ignore them, but if everybody but you is seeing them and reacting to them, no amount of hiding is going to make it go away. That is the main point.

      1. Mike Smith

        Re: While no form of bullying is pleasant...

        'If somebody sets up a fake profile...'

        That would be libel, pure and simple. Don't need new laws to bring an action for that.

  3. Khaptain Silver badge

    One man's meat is another man's poison

    Many things to consider, the line that they are treading is very, very thin.

    * Consider how heated some forum debates can get.

    * Some people can't bear even the slightest remark or negative critic.

    * How will they trace the historic of all and any converstations/acts.

    * Would the "victim" have behaved the same in a public place, if so case continues , if not ????

    * How to avoid people crying wolf.

    Very touchy subject and and I am not convinced that it is heading in a good direction. I agree that some people are bastards, and yes they need to be surveyed, but there are also others that need supervision by a nanny "before and/or during" being allowed into the web alone.

    1. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

      Re: One man's meat is another man's poison

      A flame war is not harassment. Criticism is not harassment. This isn't a law against harsh words; it's a law against actions.

      Forum arguments are not bullying: The forum posts are the record of the conversation, and the person being "abused" has the right of reply right there by posting a rebuttal. It's still free debate, even if it degenerates into abusive debate; also, reading the transcript, it will become clear who's being abusive, and who isn't, should the matter need to be taken further. Also, the ability to edit posts allows those people who type before thinking a chance to retract and apologise for their ill-judged remarks, and most forums are moderated to some extent.

      This law isn't about someone making one or two nasty posts on a forum, it's about pre-meditiated, concerted actions to damage another person's career or reputation. "Cyber-Bullying" isn't someone getting annoyed because some other nerd thinks BSD is a better licence; it's someone nursing a grudge to the point where they're prepared to impersonate their opponent online, execute anonymous smear campaigns, spread malicious rumours and fabricate "evidence" for these. That, I hope you agree, is wrong, and should be a crime.

      The reason for this consultation is this: while the current law makes running a smear campaign a crime, it does not explicitly mention the case where the instrument of that campaign is the Web.

      The change in law is to make sure that if someone is accused of defaming or bullying online and there's sufficient evidence to bring a charge, that the wording of the law itself will not allow the offender to walk free on a technicality. ("But, Your Honour, when this law was drafted, publishing meant meant printing, and my client did nothing more than enter some text on a web server. My client had no idea that this information would be read by anyone")

      There's no surveillance involved. If a complaint is made, the police will try to find evidence that will identify the suspect, just as in any other crime, but there's no suggestion at all of recording everything just in case.

      People crying wolf? Well, this is a criminal offence we're speaking about, so offences must be reported in the first instance to the police. I don't know who'd go their local Garda station with a printout of a LKML thread where they've been called a clueless amoeba, but I'm pretty sure that if they did, the matter wouldn't go much further than the station desk.

  4. yakitoo

    The online world is, in effect, now a public place

    If the act is a criminal one when done in a 'real world' public place then it should also be criminal when done online.

    1. TheWeddingPhotographer

      Re: The online world is, in effect, now a public place

      it is also an international one, which is hard to police and enforce in... It is also filled with people from multiple cultural opinions as to what is OK and not OK

      1. Tom 35

        Re: The online world is, in effect, now a public place

        And they need to define what is a crime (good luck with that) so that people can know what they are typing is a crime before they click send.

        But it will be some wishy washy thing and will just end up being a law important people can use to hit people they don't like.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: The online world is, in effect, now a public place

      And similarly if it's legal to do it in public it should be legal online.

      If I'm allowed to stand at Hyde park corner and shout "down with the government" it shouldn't be an offense under some technicality telecommunications act to say the same thing on twitter.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The online world is, in effect, now a public place

      "If the act is a criminal one when done in a 'real world' public place then it should also be criminal when done online."

      Well thats WoW and every other MMO screwed then.

    4. Zog_but_not_the_first

      Re: The online world is, in effect, now a public place

      Sort of, "if you die in the Matrix".

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think the question is what is "Cyber Bullying" we want a nice tight legal definition that isn't open to much interpretation so we can specifically focus on the crime.

    As opposed to a wooly definition that covers everything from me calling someone a cunt when think they're being a cunt right the way to someone sending someone pictures of their house and telling them they're going to rape and murder them.

    Now a lot of this is UK centric now as I'm from the uk

    And it's all very complicated an awful lot, what about when lots of people say bad things about someone but nobody really says it more than once and then the person kills themselves.

    What about the old lady that kept on pointing out she believed the mccanns murdered their child and then killed herself when the press started stalking her.

    What about the people that threatened to rape and kill the female student that said she was glad that soldier got murdered in London.

    The guy that made an offhand comment about blowing up an airport if his plane was late again. (Not bullying but an example of how things can get out of hand)

    It's all very complicated. /b/ used to use the term internet hate machine for itself, the reality is it feels like the whole internet has become /b/ except far far worse. How to deal with that I suspect is going to be far more down to education and powerful toolsets then fluffy laws.

    1. Gert Leboski

      All very well, but thinking practically...

      As pointed out by the AC above, I read the article and immediately thought about the "Hail Mary Cloud" approach to cyber-bullying, which then opened up the "but what if..." floodgates of my mind.

      Whilst I agree that if something is illegal in the physical world then it should also be illegal in the online world, I can't even begin to imagine how this could actually be imposed and policed, on a global scale, without it being useless due to open interpretation and also represent a serious risk of abuse by corporations and governments.

      Something should be done, the shape of how it might look isn't a million miles away, but the practicalities of implementing, administering and effecting these laws isn't even a vapour right now, let alone something tangibly solid.

  6. SolidSquid

    Wouldn't a lot of this be covered by harassment laws? Otherwise I'd agree with the AC above, it'll need a *very* tight definition of what's meant by "Cyber Bullying" before it could potentially be written into law

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Wouldn't a lot of this be covered by harassment laws?

      I agree. Bullying of any sort (even verbal) is an assault, and can surely be treated under existing assault laws? Creating a special case of "cyberbullying" isn't necessary. The risk is that, like using "shoplifting" instead of plain old criminal "theft", it makes the offender seem special in some way. He or she isn't special, just a plain old bully, however they do it.

  7. Ken 16 Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Does guessing someones password count as 'Hacking' now?

    The 1991 act refers to damage to data. Opening a social media site using a password doesn't really hit that bar, even if the 'guess' is technically assisted.

    1. Snorlax Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Does guessing someones password count as 'Hacking' now?

      The 1991 act refers to damage to data. Opening a social media site using a password doesn't really hit that bar, even if the 'guess' is technically assisted.

      I'll double-check sometime but, prior to the 1991 Act, I believe a hacker would be prosecuted under some 'theft of electricity'-type legislation as you were using and abusing electrons that didn't belong to you. No joke...

  8. John Savard

    Canadian Perspective

    In Canada, there was a high-profile case of a young girl, raped by four young boys who have not yet been charged, who eventually committed suicide after a video of the attack was posted online, accusing her of being guilty of unchastity. As eventually some of those who posted the video online were charged with a child pornography offence, for a time it was unlawful to utter her name, although it had previously been used in stories about the incident.

    Given this, there is strong sentiment in Canada for having all the tools possible to deal harshly with this sort of thing before another tragedy happens.

    1. The Mole

      Re: Canadian Perspective

      Whilst that is a tragic occurrence you have to be careful, there's a well known legal maxim that hard cases make bad law. Even with this particular case why should the fact it was done online be special, afterall what if they hadn't emailed it and just shown it round the classroom instead or whatever? Most of these cases should be covered by existing harrasment laws - and if they don't then that's the law that probably needs improving

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Canadian Perspective

      To restate the point made above; 'hard cases make bad law', something we learned about the hard way during the Blair era, and are still suffering the consequences of now.

      I can't count the times the press were apparently dangling from Downing streets strings, endlessly replaying a teary eyed parent after a gruesome child murder or the victim of once in a blue moon assault or 'terror' event (tanks at Heathrow anyone?), while Tony and Al were lining up the brainless lobby fodder to railroad through another diabolical piece of legislation that barely touched on the headline issue it was allegedly going to address, but coincidently did have a dual use and ticked a large number of Dear Leaders little 'must have' boxes. In the end, his term of office looked in retrospect rather transparently like an illiberal law manufacturing plant.

      So awful as the case you quote is, I'd be wary (indeed suspicious) of any government keen to ram through law at the drop of a hat off the back of a case that's bound to raise the public blood pressure. Bad law can sprout overnight, but takes years to eradicate, and you may not like all the unforeseen consequences it carries.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Discuss:

    The governments (UK, Ireland, Wales, timbucto, doesn't really matter) seem intent on making everything a crime. All part of the plan to get our DNA on a database.

    Dear criminal / tax payer, you have been arrested for spitting or littering or some other unpleasant but "harmless" offence. Now, give us your DNA...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Discuss:

      "Everything" seems pretty neatly covered in the UK by "Public order offence" or "breach of the peace". The offence as reported rarely matches the tone suggested by the charge.

  10. Technological Viking
    Black Helicopters

    The word shouldn't even exist

    The term cyberbullying was beaten until it fit any bad act online, then dragged out into the public by massive media corporations so that they could make people fear the Internet when it was in its infancy. They had a lot of money to lose if the general population started going to blogs or news aggregates to get their information and entertainment, so they fought a hard battle to make sure their audiences were at least hesitant to spend too much time on the web. They obviously have either lost or compromised for the most part, but cyberbullying still exists as a concept, even when it's completely unrelated to physical bullying and should be treated extremely differently. If it's harassment, call it harassment and treat it as such legally. If the Internet was a tool in harassment, say as much, don't try to change the definition of the act because a term was repeated too frequently for too long.

    Side note: original cyber bullies were typically those that suffered at the hands of physical bullies and were able to use the Internet to turn that psychological torment on their physical aggressors. They didn't want the people that had power over them in meatspace to be on things like MySpace.

  11. Mark 85

    A Law or a TOS violation

    Maybe the key is not a law for this since there's a problem of culture, jurisdiction, etc. Perhaps the providers of services should step up and enforce their TOS uniformly and evenly across the board. FB, for example, has NOT been doing this if reports are to be believed, in that sometimes they take action, other times they don't for the same violations. If the corporations are held culpable (maybe not by law but by their users) for their inaction, then things might change. Social media is still voluntary in spite of the social pressures to use it. If people abandon one media then the remainder should learn the lesson.

    Everyone expects "laws" to fix the wrongs in the world, but I believe the problem is deeper than "laws". It's the way modern societies in general seem to allow many bad behaviors with few consequences. No one takes responsibility for their actions as they have been taught "it's someone else's fault".

    </rant> I realize I'm in the minority but laws have never stopped anyone from breaking them.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It still amazes me how many people put their real details into FB

    How much is this new change of the law going to cost, all to protect people who exposed themselves on the net.

    How about instead that all social media sites are required to confirm members to be adults, so resolving the school yard extention into "Cyber Bullying". Any adult stupid enough to expose themselves to ridicule on the net takes their lumps and learns a life lesson there sorted it for ya.

    FB and all the other SM sites are not compulsary for anyone, yes some people have said here that they use these sites for free advertising and contact making but since when has anything been free?

    If instead they had posted paper adverts around their neighbourhood and some vandals wrote rude words over they would they also expect someone to come and clean them up for them? you are both IMHO as guilty as each other.

    Fundementally if you publish anything on the net then expect some people to question and possibly even insult you and your publications.

    Everyone on the net has an equal voice and that is exactly how it should be, making laws to protect the rights of people who have put themselves in the public domain is stupidty itself, noone forced anyone to publish their personal info on FB and those that do should take the consequencies of their actions without making the rest of us pay to clean up their mess.

  13. ukgnome

    We have named it Banteroll - part banter part troll

    Me and Mrs Gnome chatted about this sort of thing, and when is a troll not a troll, we both agreed that there should be some retribution.

    We basically arrived at this - a troll is a malicious twat except when they are trolling a friend and then it becomes banter. It's racists to say nigga even in an ironic sense if you are anything other that a black american. And then you can call anyone you like one and it's fine, because like banter it has a massive contradiction attached. Calling someone gay is fine, because gays don't actually care either way, although the person that has been called gay might but it's ok as you can claim it's banter. We couldn't agree were trolls started or were banter started, as something funny to one person (banter) is deeply offensive to another (troll). We did however decide on one thing.

    Katie Hopkins is a troll and should be ignored,

  14. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. Snorlax Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Over-Egging The Pudding

    The police (Gardai) and the judiciary have plenty of existing legislation which can be used to prosecute cyber-bullying/stalking and facebook hijacking including the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, Criminal Damage Act 1991, Defamation Act 2009, Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act 1989, etc.

    Are more laws or amendments *really* needed? Does every barney on a forum or tasteless joke about Madeline McCann on Facebook need its day in court? Have we all turned into a bunch of easily-butthurt dimwits?

    Anyway, given the glacial speed the LRC works at, I wouldn't expect any conclusive recommendations before 2025...

  16. earl grey
    Flame

    how is this supposed to work again?

    I mean, you MIGHT be able to track down an "offender" who lives in the same political subdivision you / your alleged victim are in; but how, pray tell, do you plan on crossing political subdivisions to enforce this? If your tormentor lives across the pond or across the channel; what now?

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A bit heavy handed...

    if this is just an attempt to ban Irish jokes ;)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon