Nova Scotia's New Cyberbullying Law Will 'Make Bullies Of Us All'

from the 'fixing'-something-by-breaking-it dept

Wed, Aug 14th 2013 12:40pm — Tim Cushing

Another anti-cyberbullying ordinance has been rolled out in response to a tragedy. This time it's Nova Scotia enacting a new law aimed at combating the sort of behavior that resulted in the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons.

Parsons' story is particularly horrible. Cyberbullying was only part of the problem. The much larger issue was the actual crimes committed against Parsons, criminal acts that already have laws on the books to address them. Parsons was allegedly gang-raped and harassed by her rapists. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted a yearlong investigation into the case but ultimately decided there was a lack of sufficient evidence to pursue rape charges. (Conversely, activist "group" Anonymous claimed to have solved the case in two hours, using a variety of gathered information, including the EXIF data that the RCMP seemingly overlooked.)

Rather belatedly, the RCMP HAS decided to pursue child pornography charges against two of the alleged assailants, but this will be of little comfort to Parsons' family. Unfortunately, this new law (the "Cyber Safety Act" or Bill 61) won't do much to address the sort of criminal behavior Parsons suffered through. Instead, the bill will likely end up "making bullies of us all," according to Jessie Brown at MacLean's.

Rape, assault, harassment: these are crimes with established parameters. All of them could also be called “bullying.” They could also be described as “mean,” and I suppose we could enact a law against being mean. But I’d rather have laws against specific crimes, rather than against vast swaths of vaguely defined human behaviour. Ultimately, bullying is in the eye of the bullied.

Here's where these laws fall apart. Instead of an objective standard, the accused are held to a subjective standard, one applied by the accuser and enforced by the law. Where most criminal activities are clearly defined by certain actions, cyberbullying (and regular bullying) have no clear definition.

The bill works this way: an accuser files a claim with the court, requesting a protection order against the accused. A judge decides whether the behavior detailed meets the definition of "cyberbullying" set by this law. The definition of cyerbullying is broad and vague, the end result of overly-cautious lawmakers addressing a problem with no clear boundaries and doing so under the self-imposed pressure of needing to "do something."

The definition of cyberbullying, in this particular bill, includes “any electronic communication” that ”ought reasonably be expected” to “humiliate” another person, or harm their “emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.”

If this is the standard, I don’t know a person who isn’t a cyberbully.

Here's what can happen to the accused should the judge grant the protection order. (This process, by the way, occurs without any input from the accused -- it's solely between the judge and accuser.)

The police can seize your computers and phone.
Your Internet connection can be shut off.
You can be ordered to stop using electronic devices entirely.
Your Internet Service Provider or Internet companies, such as Facebook, can be compelled to fork over all your data to the police.
You can be gagged by the court and prohibited from mentioning your accuser online.
If you violate any of these orders, you’ll face stiff fines and up to two years of jail time. At this point, your accuser can sue you in civil court.

So, the law basically makes it possible for anyone's unfortunate online comments to result in a civil suit or a prison sentence. The process isn't adversarial at any point where some input or context might make a difference. Presumably, the accused can defend themselves once in civil court, but that will only mitigate the damages without having any effect on previous criminal charges or punishments already enacted.

Even worse, the law opens up parents to be targeted by civil suits for the bullying activities of their children and pushes school administrators to enact zero-tolerance policies backed by mandatory suspensions for bullying behavior -- even if it occurs off-campus. While there's something to be said for forcing parents to take responsibilities for the actions of their children, in practice this becomes nothing more than presenting parents as a "soft target" for civil suits, allowing the accuser to bypass the accused entirely if success against the parents seems more promising.

Responding to a bullying incident by lowering the bar and raising the consequences is completely the wrong answer, no matter how tragic the incident. This new law has the potential to criminalize plenty of non-bullying activity and may actually encourage abuse by anyone who sees the possibilities provided by the law's unintended consequences -- an easy route to shut down and prosecute anyone who irritates them in any way.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cyberbullying, free speech, nova scotia, rehtaeh parsons

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:56am

Here's what can happen to the accused should the judge grant the protection order. (This process, by the way, occurs without any input from the accused -- it's solely between the judge and accuser.)

Basically it allows for lawful bullying since the language is broad. Not to mention that the bullied may feel empowered with all these stuff and virtually make the life of the bully a living hell effectively becoming the bully. This case is rather extreme but think of other cyberbullying cases where there was only verbal/moral harassment: what if the tables were turned and the original bully suicided? Would it be fair?

The simple answer is no. Punishment has to be proportional to the harm caused as ruled by a jury, judges and experts. Putting the power of effectively making "justice" in the hands of any random person (including real bullying victims) is not justice.

It will be abused like crazy. And a ton of innocent kids and stupid teenagers will suffer a much greater harm than bullying may ever produce. But alas, it's for the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  Here's what can happen to the accused should the judge grant the protection order. (This process, by the way, occurs without any input from the accused -- it's solely between the judge and accuser.)
  
  Surely going and getting one of these orders could itself constitute bullying
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:49pm

Is voting OOTB down considered cyberbullying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re:
  No; civic duty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:57pm

There's no way in hell this will last longer than a couple months before it's stomped down under section 2, and probably one or more of sections 7, 8 and 9. The questions are how much damage the Nova Scotia police will do before it's stomped down, and whether the issue has enough momentum that the Nova Scotia government will break out the notwithstanding clause in response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm

Well when life gives you lemons...

I wonder if ootb is located in Nova Scotia or at least somehow get him/her/it extradited there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- McCrea (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re:
  so he say how we all bully him, and we'll be the ones on probation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
psy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:15pm

Careful Application
Since when have kids thought twice about posting? The NSA and CSIS collecting it all 'ought to scare them enough. Alas,
probably not and this law will have to be carefully applied until the debate it carves out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:15pm

mittens!
The definition of cyberbullying, in this particular bill, includes �any electronic communication� that �ought reasonably be expected� to... harm [another person's] "reputation.�

So when you accuse someone of being a cyberbully, don't do it by email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:33pm

Let's look at this closely
The definition of cyberbullying, in this particular bill, includes �any electronic communication� that �ought reasonably be expected� to �humiliate� another person, or harm their �emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.�

I find stupidity (in all its myriad forms) offensive. I find it upsetting. Being upset harms my emotional well-being. It makes my blood pressure go up. It makes my stomach churn. It makes me want to reach for scotch at 9:17 AM.

Given that all these things are true, could I then use this mechanism to get all the stupid people thrown offline?

Well, then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:54pm
  
  Re: Let's look at this closely
  I find myself humiliating..I also find when the government takes away my PC, the government has humiliated me...therefore I lose my PC...but the government loses all their stuff too......with NO TRIAL.....
  
  PLEASE PLEASE someone file this...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lonyo, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:34pm

Reversal
Surely you can just counter-claim that they are bullying you.

You get accused. Things get done to you.
Then you claim that your �emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation� has been harmed by what has happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:45pm

Her name is "Heather" spelled backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:07pm

What ever happened to sticks and stones? I'm really sick of progressive pansies trying to tell me what I can and can't say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:25pm

The definition of cyberbullying, in this particular bill, includes �any electronic communication� that �ought reasonably be expected� to �humiliate� another person, or harm their �emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.�

So if someone says something that causes you to face palm they have bullied you by causing you actual harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  Only if the facepalm ought reasonably be expected!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Brand, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:27pm

Unlikely to stay on the books
If penalties can be imposed without any input from the accused, that would seem to clearly violate sections 7 and 11d of the Charter, which give Canadians the right to a "full answer and defence".
Of course it will still cause plenty of trouble before it does finally get shot down by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:36pm

This effectively outlaws a political debate between two people in a thread the moment one becomes butt hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R, 14 Aug 2013 @ 3:47pm

"harms their reputation"
Has anyone else noticed that there's no mention of intent whatsoever? In other words, publishing factual information about someone's incompetence or criminal acts for the purpose of warning people would violate this law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:06pm

You're a jerk, Cushing. A complete kneebiter.*

*or arsehole, if you prefer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jtl999 (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:34pm

If laws like this existed on the other side of country (BC) I would practically be in jail by now. People last year at my school accused me of messing with privacy settings on FaceBook to say bad things about other students. Some teachers looked at me funny. Laws like these are too vague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:58pm

Then there were the ever-present cyberbully rapists
They made her fall in love with dyin', they were doin' it on Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, 14 Aug 2013 @ 5:04pm

The Constitution protects free speech by preventing the government from creating laws which may affect it. Nowhere does it state that you're protected FROM speech, much less that the state is there to protect your feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 14 Aug 2013 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re:
  Well, the article concerns Canada, but if their constitution is anything like ours, that "preventing the government from creating laws which may affect it" thing ain't working out for them either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Correct me if I'm mistaken but they've already tried to implement online anti-bullying laws here in the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 10:17pm

Fortunately it limits itself to just cyberbullying...
Imagine all the harm done if it targeted all bullying:

-Screaming profanities at a fellow motorist on the highway means having the law take your car away and/or the right to travel.

-Putting up a sign on your property that distresses your neighbors will have the law take possesion of your home.

-Make a bad joke at work that accidently humiliates a coworker and you'll never be allowed to work by law anywhere ever again.

-Live your life in such a manor to cause the displeasure of others, especialy the law, will have your living priviledges revoked permanately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 2:47am
  
  Re: Fortunately it limits itself to just cyberbullying...
  Just use Twitter. They will remove any offensive post.
  
  "Twitter issues new rules to control abusive language after storm of misogynist messages
  
  The company also promised to devote more staff to weed out offending messages.
  
  In a series of statements posted to Twitter, General Manager Tony Wang issued his own apology �to the women who have experienced abuse on Twitter and for what they have gone through.�
  
  Wang said in a tweet that the new anti-abuse policy will apply worldwide."
  http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/08/04/twitter-issues-new-rules-to-control-abusive-language -after-storm-of-misogynist-messages/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emelio Lizardo, 15 Aug 2013 @ 8:17am

Kiddy pornogaphers
Anyone notice the irony of children being charged with child pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:52pm

Ever think this rule was put in place for one thing and one thing only - to remove anyone that criticizes those in power in Nova Scotia (and of course their pay-masters in various entertainment industries).

Comes the MPAA - hey we think that your comment about "I don't like the MPAA because they are all cacky fingered asses" was humiliating therefore we get to take everything you own and make you fight to get it back...Yay! for the totalitarian state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goddess of the Night, 21 Jan 2014 @ 4:29pm

OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goddess of the Night, 21 Jan 2014 @ 4:32pm

Law being used to target political dissidents
This law is already being abused. I wrote a feminist article about a man who sexually assaulted me and linked to his online profiles, all within the public domain and got CyberSCAN come to my house accusing me of cyberbullying because it made the guy look bad. This law is authoritarian, pure and simple and violates the human rights of Nova Scotians. Thinking of moving to another province just to get away from this shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]