A few years ago, Magomed Yevlov was arrested by Nazran police for his involvement in anti-Kremlin website, Ingushetia.ru. As he was being transported to the police headquarters, one of the officers accidentally discharged his weapon into the head of Magomed. Less than a week ago, the body of a student who was wrongfully identified as a suspect involved in the Boston marathon bombing was found by members of a University rowing team. The individual’s family were shocked at how fast “completely unsubstantiated claims were spreading”. Less than a month ago, Rehtaeh Parsons, a 17-year-old student from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, committed suicide after photos of an alleged gang rape were widely distributed online.
The above incidents demonstrate the blurring of the line between real and virtual, and how events the latter can have negative consequences in the former, regardless of the country in which one lives. This fact is causing is also causing legislature around the world to enact new laws and regulations. In the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, the Province of Nova Scotia has recently tabled a bill, the “Cyber-safety Act”, in the provincial legislature in order to address cyberbullying. As the Bill jas just been tabled, there is still a likelihood that it will be amended as it works its way through the legislature and committees.
An interesting feature of the Bill is that it deems some parents to be cyberbullies themselves if they know their minor child is engaging in cyberbullying, reasonably expect the activity of their minor child to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damages or harm to another person’s health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation, and fail to take steps to prevent the activity from continuing. What this provision reflects is nothing more than parental liability for the acts of their minor children.
The cyberbullying act also creates cyberbullying protection orders, which are orders issued by the courts to require an individual to cease activities that will be prescribed in the order. The respondent may be prohibited from: engaging in cyberbullying; communicating with or contacting the subject or a specified person; communicating about the subject or a specified person; using a specified or any means of electronic communication. The order may also confiscate any electronic device capable of connecting to an Internet Protocol address associated with the respondent or used by the respondent for cyberbullying, and perhaps more drastically, discontinue receiving service from an Internet service provider.
New Tort of Cyberbullying
The Bill introduces a brand-new tort of cyberbullying, which entitles a victim of cyberbullying the right to sue in the civil courts for damages. According to the bill, a person commits a tort against another person by “subjecting another person to cyberbullying”. Needless to say, it will be imperative for the legislature to provide greater clarity and precision to its tort of cyberbullying. Remedies available to a plaintiff include damages (general, special, aggravated and punitive) as well as an injunction. The tort of cyberbullying would be in addition to any other causes of action that might be brought to bear, including defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Under the current Bill, parents of a minor cyberbully jointly and severally liable for all the damages unless the parents are able to show due diligence. It is understandable that the government would include this provision, since young cyberbullies likely do not have any assets of their own (making a civil lawsuit futile) and to perhaps dip into the homeowners or renters insurance policies that parents may have.
Amendments to the Education Act
The Bill also innovates by promoting and encouraging safe and respectful electronic communications to the mandate of the school system. Curiously, it gives school principals explicit jurisdiction over outside of school activities that are disruptive to the school environment. Outside school activities include, for instance, property immediately adjacent to school grounds, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, function or program whether on or off school grounds, at a school bus stop or on a school bus, but also curiously includes a “location,
activity, function or program that is off school grounds and is not school-sponsored or school-related, if the behaviour significantly disrupts the learning climate of the school.” Principals are given the authority to take appropriate action, including suspending the student for a period of not more than five school days.
Related articles
- Cyberbullying bill headed to Fla. senate (abcactionnews.com)
- N.S. cyberbullying investigative unit a 1st in Canada (cbc.ca)
- Sask. passes motion urging Criminal Code changes to stop cyberbullies (ctvnews.ca)
- Justice minister to call for quick action on cyberbullying (ctvnews.ca)
- Cyberbullying bill positive but could use tweaks: prof (cbc.ca)
- uKnowKids Provides Cyberbullying Tips and Resources for South Carolina in Light of Possible New Cyberbullying Law (prweb.com)
- Rehtaeh Parsons’s family has ‘heartfelt’ talk with Harper (cbc.ca)
- uKnowKids Provides Cyberbullying Tips and Resources for Colorado Springs, Colorado and Surrounding Areas in Light of Recent News (prweb.com)
- Cyberbullying legislation prompts emotional responses (globalnews.ca)
- Ottawa to fast-track efforts for new cyberbullying law: justice minister (ctvnews.ca)
