Canadian Newspaper Under Investigation For Violating Ban On Publishing Names Of Child Pornography Victims

from the where-good-intentions-meet-the-friction-of-real-life dept

A Canadian newspaper is under investigation for violating a court-ordered ban on publishing the names of child pornography victims. The Chronicle Herald covered the sentencing of a young man on child pornography distribution charges but included the name of his victim, Rehtaeh Parsons.

Rehtaeh Parsons was 15 when the then-17-year-old young man sent a photo of him having sex with her to two other females. Parsons was apparently unaware she was being sexually assaulted. The photo showed not only the young man's actions, but her vomiting out a window.

The subsequent distribution of these photos, along with additional harassment from both the participants and Parsons' peers, eventually led to her suicide. Her suicide then prompted Nova Scotia's legislators to enact an extremely unfortunate cyberbullying law in late 2013, nearly two years after the incident and four months after Parsons took her own life.

In May of 2014, the legally-ordained ban was upheld, forbidding anyone or any media entity from publishing Parsons' name, despite objections from Rehtaeh's parents, who were actively seeking an exception from this part of Canada's child pornography laws. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had decided to pursue child pornography charges rather than sexual assault charges and the resulting indictments dragged Retaeh's name under the cover of this ban.

The Chronicle Herald's story on the guilty plea entered by of one of the two perpetrators (whose names are still being withheld because they were minors at the time) leads off with this editor's note:

We’ve decided to publish the name of the victim in this story, despite a court-ordered ban. We believe it’s in the public interest in this unique case, given the widespread recognition of Rehtaeh Parsons’ name, and given the good that can come, and has already come, from free public debate over sexual consent and the other elements of her story.

Rehtaeh’s parents want her name printed, and Judge Jamie Campbell, who upheld the publication ban, wrote in his decision that “the ban serves no purpose,” though he had no choice but to uphold it. Waiving Rehtaeh’s privacy rights “would be a good thing, if it could be done just for this case, just this once,” the judge wrote.

It is difficult for readers to follow a news story when the name associated with it is omitted, and we want to inform Nova Scotians of the outcome of this legal case. We would like to reassure other crime victims that their own court-ordered privacy rights will be respected as always.

As is noted here, Parsons' parents fought to keep her from being "forgotten" by this ban, but to no avail. The Parsons' have given their blanket permission for publication, but that has had no effect on whatever sort of busybody it is that reads this disclaimer and still files a complaint. An accompanying story notes that the Chronicle Herald is being investigated by local law enforcement.

Police have launched an investigation into a possible breach of a publication ban after a major news outlet in Halifax published the name of a teenage girl at the centre of a high-profile child pornography case.

Const. Pierre Bourdages said Tuesday that they had received several reports from citizens complaining about the use of the girl’s name, which is subject to a publication ban under the Criminal Code.

“There’s already been a number of complaints filed with the department in relation to this article,” he said.

“There’s an alleged breach of the publication ban … so we have an investigation ongoing now.”

Now, it would seem that the only party with any true claim over Parsons' name would be her parents, but apparently, certain members of the public feel otherwise. The good news is that this isn't the police's first run-in with the publication ban and they seem to be handling other cases in a responsible manner using context and common sense, rather than blindly asserting that "The law is the law" and punishing those who violate the letter, rather than the spirit.

“Investigators considered whether the victim’s name was used in connection with the child pornography charges as well as the overall context in which her name was used,” police said in a statement.

Based on that and consultation with the Crown, charges were not laid, police said.

Even the prosecutor seems uninterested in laying charges just to be laying charges.

Chris Hansen of the province’s Public Prosecution Service said they consulted police in the seven previous instances, but concluded that there was either not a likely chance of conviction or that if there was, it was not in the public interest to pursue it.

She said they considered several factors, including the past publicity and widespread publication of her name, the wishes of her family to have her name published and the possibility that it would facilitate public debate on a “serious societal issue.”

It's refreshing to see this recognition that the law isn't always binary. The Parsons' have repeatedly stated they don't want their daughter's name removed from additional coverage of this case. The judge upholding the ban also noted that exceptions were needed but wasn't something that could be handled from the court's end. Meddling citizens with no actual stake in the matter may be trying to make things more difficult for the press by complaining about ban violations, but so far it appears they won't be receiving any help from those actually charged with enforcing the law.

Filed Under: canada, child porn, free speech, harassment, journalism, rehtaeh parsons, reporting, sexual assault

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

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

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.

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