Backing the bullied
Friday, April 5, 2013
Life should improve for the victims of online bullying under legislation proposed by Justice Minister Judith Collins. The bulk of the good work behind it was done by the Law Commission, whose report into the problem has substantially been adopted in a draft law.
In general, this goes as far as it reasonably can to address the alarming lack of a combination of corrections and sanctions in New Zealand.
The law does appear to avoid the risk of being inadequate or tokenistic, without over-reaching to dampen the stroppy, even unlovely, end of the legitimate free-speech spectrum. Jerks, creeps, oafs and lunkhead humorists will still have plenty of scope for their own brand of joyous self-expression. But those with an agenda of tormenting a victim with the intention of causing real physical harm or emotional distress will be better exposed to consequences.
Most of these will stop well short of prosecution but that’s okay. Hair-trigger legislation is not required.
The first port of call for victims, or those acting on their behalf, will be an ‘‘approved agency’’ that will advise them on steps they can take and will investigate substantial complaints and attempt to reach settlements. This is not as wimpy as it sounds because sometimes having an independent agency just confront bad behaviour will be enough to correct it. The agency will also liaise with website hosts, ESP and other internet intermediaries and ask them to take down or moderate offensive posts.
Serious unresolved cases will be referred to a district court. The Law Commission had envisaged a tribunal overseen by a judge but the Government, reasonably enough, believes that the present court system has the nous for the job. And the expectation is that maybe 100 cases will come before the courts each year.
Much has been made of the fact that in the most serious cases, cyberbullies could be jailed for up to three years. Jail time, you would have to expect, would be rare indeed though even the fines that would more often be imposed, while not brutal in themselves, should be seen as merely part of a broader social penalty of public exposure as a bully, and the attendant publicity attached. Nothing ironic there. That’s just apt consequence.
Specific criminal offences are being created, often plugging holes in existing legislation. One would fix the fact that online grooming for illicit sexual encounters becomes an offence without, necessarily, reaching the stage of arranging a physical meeting.
Another big loophole closing up is that inciting suicide becomes illegal in itself. As things stand, it is not criminal unless the victim attempts it.
Right there, though, is an example of the sort of judgment that the agency and the court will need to apply. Though merely dismissive comments such as ‘‘aww, go play in traffic’’ might literally be read as incitements to suicide, the lack of real intent would stay the authorities’ hand.
Most would say that the great majority of cyberbullying is inflicted by young people on young people. In schools themselves, physical and verbal bullying is nowhere near the level it used to be because better education involving kids, teachers and parents has led to changing values. A large part of the cyberbullying problem has to go down the same road. Part of that happening is the creation of laws and systems that allow for levels of social support for victims and accountability — and sometimes, sure, help — for offenders. Crucially, both victim and bully need to understand that they are not in isolation. The rest of society is out there and ready to get involved.