He’s been borrowing yours every day. Both kids have so many after school sports that they really could benefit from having a phone to call you when their practices are over. You’ve hemmed and you’ve hawed, but finally you’ve given in and bought your child a smartphone. Now, the challenge begins: How do you ensure that he or she uses it wisely? Here are 10 guidelines to promote respectful, responsible use of your child’s new gadget:

1. Have Rules

Only a few short years ago, all your kids ever asked for were playthings — Legos, Barbies or just about anything to do with Disney. Help your young person understand that this gift of a smartphone is qualitatively different than presents of the past. A smartphone is not a toy; it is a tool. While parents may hope and pray that it is a tool used for safety (i.e. so that parents can easily get in touch with their child at any point in the day), most kids use their phones primarily for socializing (read: to call, text, Instagram, Kik, Facebook and otherwise connect with their peers at any point in the day.)

Either way, I exaggerate not when I encourage you to spend as much time and care teaching your child how to ethically use a smartphone as you would instructing him in how to wield a power tool. Am I comparing a smartphone to a chainsaw? Well, sort of. Surely, both can do a lot of damage when used incorrectly. So, the first rule for safe smartphone use is to make clear the fact that unlike the creative freedom that came with yesteryear’s gifts of Play-Doh and Crayola sets, there are firm rules for smartphone use (see below for a few key ones) and that accessing their smartphone will be contingent upon following these rules. Period.

2. Set Limits on Usage

In terms of rules, a good place to start is with setting reasonable guidelines on usage. At first, you might think it’s great that your young person is making such good use of their expensive new gift — until you realize that she has not had a face-to-face conversation with a peer in weeks. Much less a decent night’s sleep. Compulsive technology use develops very quickly for many young people whose developing brains seem especially susceptible to the lure of compulsive status updates, continuous checks for incoming texts and constant over-sharing. Setting limits on usage from the start can help prevent technology from becoming all-consuming for kids. Consider the specifics that are right for your family, in terms of:

• • Who your child is allowed to call?

• • How many minutes does her calling plan allow her to use each month?

• • Is your child permitted to text? How many texts are included in your payment plan?

• • What apps is she allowed to DOWNLOAD and use?
• Are there apps that are strictly off limits?

• • At what time each night must the smartphone be put to bed? (Hint: nestled in a charger, far away from the child?)

• • Can the child bring the smartphone to school? Use it when hanging out with friends?

• • Who pays the monthly cell phone bill?

• What are the consequences for violating the agreed upon guidelines?

  3. Pay Attention to Netiquette

  The social media apps available via smartphone can be a playground for unfettered harshness. With a few simple clicks, kids guiltlessly post cruel messages and taunts that they would never dare say to a peer’s face. Parents should set very specific rules about the ethical use of social media sites and be clear that posting mean comments, spreading gossip, forwarding embarrassing photos or taking part in any type of unkind behavior via technology is unacceptable. It is also important to talk to kids about how to treat others while texting. For example, teach kids to ask themselves:

  • • Would I say the words I am texting to a person’s face?

   

  • • What would my parents think if they read this text?

   

   

  • • Could this photo I am sending cause hurt or embarrassment to me, my friends, my family, or anyone else?

   

  • Can my text be taken out of context and used to hurt me or someone else?

  Smartphones can provide a direct route to cyberbullying and relational aggression among young people, so being clear that apps, texts and phone calls are not to be used as tools of gossip, exclusion, or embarrassment, is essential.

  4. Stress Quality Over Quantity

  The advent of social media sites and apps that enumerate your child’s “friends” and “followers” has created a culture in which personal value is measured more by the quantity of people in a social network than by the quality of relationships that your child has with any of them. Remind your son or daughter that real friendship is not measured by a number of friends on a list, a quantity of texts received in an hour or even the simultaneous number of conversations he can have while online. Popularity is about being well-liked in person, rather than avidly followed online.

  5. Don’t Ignore the Friend in Front of You

  Next time you go out to dinner, note the number of people sitting down together for a meal NOT talking to each other. These days, it happens everywhere you go — people gathering in a group only to ignore their companions in favor of the person(s) on the other side of their gadget. Am I just getting old or is it bewildering? Just last week, an 11-year-old sixth grade student lamented to me that she was invited to sleepover at a friend’s house, but all the friend did throughout the night was text with girls not invited over. It made the guest feel rejected, unwanted,and disregarded.

  In this day and age where building up friend lists has become so integral to self-esteem, it’s tempting for kids to try to prove their coolness by having their smartphone out in front of their friends — a way of prominently showing how “in demand” they are. For your new smartphone user, give him the gift of learning how to truly be present with the friend in their presence — to put away their gadget and engage the person they are with.

  6. Maintain Privacy

  Show your child how to set up the privacy features offered by social networking apps. Make sure that these settings protect your child from allowing strangers access to their profiles. Talk with him or her in clear, frank terms about the real dangers of online predators and the serious need to avoid them.

  Since danger online occurs more commonly at the hands of friends than of enemies, it is also critical to teach your child how to “block” comments and contacts by peers who have a history of engaging in cruel online behavior.

  7. Privacy Does Not Include Family Members

  Set clear guidelines for smartphone usage that includes your right to see your child’s phone, browsing history and social media pages on a daily basis. While all parents want to trust their children, social media sites are not the place to start. These apps provide such tempting avenues for kids to engage in risky behavior that it is critical for parents to consistently monitor their usage. Let your kids know upfront that you will be reading posts, reviewing photos and scrutinizing friend lists. This oversight underscores the importance of safe and ethical social media usage.

  8. Teach About Permanency

  Be sure that your child is aware that what happens in cyberspace stays in cyberspace — forever! Though your daughter may think she is posting a suggestive photo for a boyfriend or sending a gossipy message to a best friend, it is up to you to teach her that her note can be cut, pasted and forwarded to an infinite number of people. Make a firm smartphone rule that your child should never post a photo or message that she wouldn’t want to have “everyone” view.

  On that note, consider setting a rule that your child go “photo free” altogether. The network news is chock-full of stories about kids who have gotten themselves into friendship-destroying, reputation-shattering, future career jeopardizing, family-humiliating situations because of photos they have posted online or via text. If your child is just starting out with his new smartphone, why not prohibit him from posting pictures altogether? At minimum, make sure that the photos they share are not suggestive, sexual, or otherwise risky.

  9. Encourage Kids to Take it Slow

  In our world of instant messaging and constant contact, young people are often tempted to say whatever comes to mind in any given moment. Teach your child the benefits of slowing things down and waiting before they post whatever thought, comeback or reaction is on their mind. Especially if they are feeling an intense emotion like anger or sadness, encourage your child to wait until they have had a chance to think things through and cool their heads before they post a message that can’t be taken back.

  10. Know the Lingo

  Are you familiar with these text-friendly acronyms?

  • • LOL

   

  • • JK

   

   

  • • BRB

   

   

  • • ATM

   

   

  • • MOS

   

  • AITR

  Texting has a language all of its own. Laugh out Loud (LOL), Just Kidding (JK) and Be Right Back (BRB) are common enough, but while most parents take for granted that ATM stands for an Automatic Teller Machine, kids can tell you that it is more likely to refer to their being “at the mall.” What’s more, kids have dozens of coded signals to indicate to one another that “my mother is standing over my shoulder” (MOS) or that adults are in the room (AITR). The more parents educate themselves about the lingo their kids are using, the better able they are to monitor smartphone use and abuse.

 

 

 

 

This “optimistic bias” or wishful thinking – an intrinsic tendency to imagine future events in a favourable light that enhances positive self-regard – leaves those Facebook users at the risk of developing depression.

“Our findings show novel discrepancies in how people perceive themselves and others concerning the positive and negative outcomes of Facebook use,” said lead author Sunny Jung Kim, postdoctoral research associate from the Dartmouth University.

In the new study, the researchers surveyed 237 active Facebook users between ages 18 and 37.

The participants were asked to assess their own and other people’s likelihood of experiencing positive and negative outcomes on Facebook.

The results show that Facebook users with “optimistic bias” tend to show strong support for internet regulations to protect other users from social ostracising, although not from psychologically negative effects, including depression and loneliness.

“The lack of support regarding psychological harms may be because mental health effects are perceived as less amenable to regulation or because their importance is underestimated,” the authors wrote.

The results also show that Facebook users who view the site negatively or who use it infrequently think other people are more likely than themselves to have positive experiences on the site, a reversed optimistic bias that is new and intriguing.

Although some might argue that it is still premature to claim that Facebook use is a direct predictor of CLINICAL DEPRESSION and suicidal attempts, a growing line of research indicates that negative events such as Facebook cyberbullying can result in detrimental consequences, including depression and substance use problems.

“Without adequate protections, the damage of these critical events can be severe,” Kim noted.

Given that negative personal and health news such as stressful events and DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS are frequently shared on Facebook, it may be an important site for observing negative psychological states of users, the authors concluded.

The findings appeared in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking.

Increasing numbers of bullied teenagers want to have cosmetic surgery, a survey has found.

The annual survey carried out by anti-bullying charity, Ditch The Label quizzed teenagers across the UK on a wide range of topics to do with bullying. It found more than half of the teenagers who responded felt they had been bullied about their appearance.

One in two went on to say they wanted to change how they look, with 56% saying they wanted to lose weight, nearly one in five wishing they could have breast implants and 5% wanting Botox.

Liam Hackett, founder and CEO of Ditch the Label, said the implications of appearance-based bullying are “significant” and can have “devastating, long-term impacts”.

The survey found teens as young as 13 are adding liposuction and breast implants to their wish lists.Hackett said: “The evidence is clear: young people are now considering drastic and invasive measures to alter their appearances due to insecurities and bullying.”

The popularity of image-based apps such as Instagram and the fashion for taking “selfies” may also be contributing, experts say, as so much bullying happens online.

Claude Knights, chief executive of Kidscape, is not surprised that body-image issues are coming to the fore. “It’s a very visual world we are living in now,” she said.

She also believes the use of “impossibly perfect” models and airbrushing techniques used in teen magazines should take some of the blame.

“This commercialisation of childhood leads in too many cases to distorted body image and low self-esteem,” she said.

This, she said, has a knock-on effect to bullying. “In some peer groups failure to conform to an artificial norm leads to bullying and exclusion.”

Teachers who are on the front line of the fight against online bullying and negative body image are having an increasingly harder time controlling the problems.

Paul Kitchener, deputy head of the Priory School in Shrewsbury said: “There has always been bullying at school but it was often very visible. I found it very much easier to deal with bullying at the start of my career than over the last few years.

“We now have very little bullying of a physical nature or actually in the school.”

The vast majority of bullying is now online or via social media. Kitchener said that before the popularity of smartphones, pupils could escape bullying at home. “Now once they close the door at home, the bullying can carry on, with Snapchat, texts and social media.”

The school works to tackle cyber-bullying during IT classes and has a dedicated programme to help pupils deal with body-image worries. School counsellors are also on hand for any pupil with concerns.

Andrea Danese, a consultant in child and adolescent psychiatry at both the South London and Maudsley NHS trust and Kings College London, is studying the link between obesity, bullying and mental health issues. He explains why bullying has such a big effect during teenage years.

“Feedback during this stage is crucial,” Danese said.

“Puberty is a difficult time. They will be trying to define their identity and what others think of them,” he said. This helps explain why some young people may have a distorted body image and want to turn to plastic surgery.

He also warned children who have a trauma in their past may be more vulnerable to the negative affects of bullying.

Teens may be naive about the permanence of photos they send using the popular social media application Snapchat. (Photo by Ildar Sagdejev via Wikipedia/Creative Commons)

» Subscribe to Patch’s free daily newsletter and news alerts.

Social media apps are ever changing and it’s hard for parents to keep up on the codes teens use to keep them in the dark about they’re saying as their fingertips furiously tap the touch screens on their smartphones and tablets.

Earlier this year, we told you about 50 texting and sexting terms your kids really don’t want you to know. The American Academy of Pediatrics found texting and sexting are a “normal” part of adolescent sexual development, but that doesn’t mean parents shouldn’t worry.

And their worries shouldn’t be limited to the messages kids are sending back and forth on their phones.

Snapchat, an application for iPhones, iPads and Android phones, allows subscribers to quickly send photos that quickly expire, increasing the temptation of teens to send embarrassing photos. The photos disappear, but that doesn’t stop the person on the receiving end from quickly grabbing a screenshot and circulating the photo beyond its intended audience.

Snapchat does notify the sender if the person receiving it takes a screengrab, but there’s a fairly common workaround. A receiver could use a digital camera to take the screenshot, and the photo that supposedly disappeared could be saved on someone else’s device,

That’s Problem No. 1 with Snapchat, according to the parenting website fatherhood.com

Problem No. 2 concerns parents who may be – and experts say, should be – monitoring their teens’ social media use. The photos and messages disappear, so there’s no record that they ever existed.

Problem No. 3: Because photos supposedly evaporate instantly, teens may be more inclined to engage in sexting because they think the risk is lower their photos will be shared on the Internet.

Problem No. 4: Snapchat and Facebook both claim photos can be permanently deleted.Forensics experts have poked holes in that promise, though, and have said photos can be retrieved from smartphones and other devices. And guess what? “You don’t necessarily need crazy forensic tools that allow you … to access the information,” Andrea London, of the forensics firm Stroz Friedberg, told Mashable.

Problem No. 5: Snapchat owns royalty rights to every “Snap,” or photo message, that users send. According to the application terms of use, Snapchat retains “”nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such user content in connection with the services, subject to your use of privacy settings in the services to control who can see your user content.”

Problem No. 6: You may need a lawyer. In accordance with the terms of use, users accept responsibility for activity occurring while they’re logged into the application. In one case, reported by the familyshare.com website, a 15-year-old boy and 14-year-old girl exchanged explicit photos, which the boy saved and his mother discovered. The families involved addressed and resolved the situation, but because the girl was 14, the boy could have faced child pornography charges and, if convicted, been forced to register as a sex offender.

Problem No. 7: Snapchat can become a runaway train if you don’t talk to your kids about the risks associated with the use. “Parents who allow their children to have SnapChat need to have a real, live, one-on-one chat … about the risks associated with the false sense of security that SnapChat may provide,” fatherhood.com said.

Now, back to the “old school” social media worries.

Here’s the list of 50 terms a Denver television station tested – and stumped – several parents to determine if they could crack the codes their children use when they’re texting or sending online messages on their phones.

A detective with the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office told Denver television station KMGH that parents may be missing some red flags “because they don’t know the lingo or the language.”

Here’s a list of commonly used terms:

1. 8 – it means ate, can also refer to oral sex
2. 9 – Parent watching
3. 99 – Parent gone
4. 1337 – Elite, leet or L337
5. 143 – I love you
6. 1174 – the meeting place, meet at
7. 420 – Marijuana
8. 459 – I love you
9. 53X – Sex
10. ADR – Address
11. AEAP – As Early As Possible
12. ALAP – As Late As Possible
13. ASL – Age/Sex/Location
14. BROKEN – hung over from alcohol
15. CD9 – Code 9 (parents are around)
16. C-P – Sleepy
17. F2F – Face-to-Face
18. GNOC – Get Naked On Cam
19. GYPO – Get Your Pants Off
20. HAK – Hugs And Kisses
21. ILU – I Love You
22. IWSN – I Want Sex Now
23. KOTL – Kiss On The Lips
24. KFY or K4Y – Kiss For You
25. KPC – Keeping Parents Clueless
26. LMIRL – Let’s Meet In Real Life
27. MOOS – Member Of The Opposite Sex
28. MOSS – Member Of The Same Sex
29. MorF – Male or Female
30. MOS – Mom Over Shoulder
31. MPFB – My Personal F*** Buddy
32. NALOPKT – Not A Lot Of People Know That
33. NIFOC – Nude In Front Of The Computer
34. NMU – Not Much, You?
35. P911 – Parent Alert
36. PAL – Parents Are Listening -or- Peace And Love
37. PAW – Parents Are Watching
38. PIR – Parent In Room
39. POS – Parent Over Shoulder or Piece Of Sh**
40. pron – Porn
41. Q2C – Quick To Cum
42. RU/18 – Are You Over 18?
43. RUMORF – Are You Male OR Female?
44. RUH – Are You Horny?
45. S2R – Send To Receive
46. SorG – Straight or Gay
47. TDTM – Talk Dirty To Me
48. WUF – Where You From
49. WYCM – Will You Call Me?
50. WYRN – What’s Your Real Name?

An Ottawa man who targeted dozens of people with fake social media ACCOUNTS and doctored photos in an international cyberbullying campaign has been sentenced to six years in prison.

Robert Campbell, 42, pleaded guilty to 63 charges of identity fraud, defamation and criminal harassment in a case that involved dozens of people across Canada, the U.S. and U.K.

The Crown had been SEEKING a sentence of eight years in prison for his crimes, while the defence argued for a lesser sentence of three years.

With time served, Campbell’s sentence WORKS out to four years and 11 months.

Campbell sat in the Ontario Superior Court in Ottawa and LOOKED at Judge Ann Alder during the entire sentencing, seemingly paying close attention to her words, often nodding in agreement.In handing down the sentence, Alder said Campbell showed a willingness to turn his life around and had told court he has the support of his wife.

8-month investigation

At his sentencing hearing, Campbell apologized for his behaviour, saying to victims in the courtroom, “I will never trouble you again.”

Campbell was charged in August after an eight-month investigation involving law enforcement agencies in B.C., ONTARIO, New Brunswick and Halifax, as well as Michigan in the U.S. and Hertfordshire and London in the U.K.

A SEARCH warrant was executed at his home in Ottawa’s Britannia Park neighbourhood and computers were seized.

Multiple aliases were used in the cyber attacks, that included fake social media ACCOUNTS and email addresses that defamed men, women and their family members, some of them minors.

Harassed for 12 years

One of his victims, Roland Stieda, told CBC NEWS during the sentencing hearing last month that he was harassed for 12 years, after working with Campbell for a few months in 2002.

Stieda said the campaign against him included false social media accounts filled with “hateful things” and false email accounts used to communicate with people in his professional and PERSONAL life.

Stieda said he was baffled at why he was targeted.

“To be honest, I barely remember the man,” Stieda said.

“That’s been one of the most difficult things in all of this is, is whenever something happens, the first thing people ask is, ‘What did you do?’ And I can’t think of any run-in I had with Mr. Campbell.”

The bill from Lorraine Higgins would make it an offence to share any MESSAGEthat incites someone to commit harm to themselves.

If accepted the bill would provide for up to 12 months in jail, or fines of €5,000, for anyone guilty of cyberbullying.

 Senator Higgins has herself RECEIVED death threats online.

 “This is not about me, it’s about vulnerable children. I’m thick-skinned, I can take the cut and thrust of this GAME,” she said.

“At the end of the day, there are a number of vulnerable children who have come out to me since I … talked about my own EXPERIENCES, and have told me about what they’ve been suffering.

“We have to protect … people whose mental HEALTH and wellbeing is being affected, because there seems to be no penalty whatsoever to the perpetrators.”

Young girls writing negative MESSAGES to themselves has become a new form of self-harm through social media, a global social network’s safety executive has said.

Ask. fm Europe’s director of trust and safety Annie Mullins said that children “writing to themselves” has become the “biggest” cyber-bullying issue that the network faced.

While the trend was not identified as a serious risk in Ireland, it had become an issue in a NUMBER of countries where “the most nasty horrid, awful statements” were being written by children to themselves.

“These we have begun to identify as quite a high risk of suicide,”Ms Mullins said.

The child protection officer, who RECEIVED an OBE six years ago for services to children and young people online, was a guest speaker at last week’s Impact’s education division conference in Galway.

The self-bullying practice tended to be the most marked among girls between the ages of 13 and 15 years – a critical time for DEVELOPMENT, Ms Mullins said.

“I don’t think we fully understand it as a phenomenon, but it is certainly a very different issue,”she said.

Ask.fm, which is said to have 150 million monthly users, was FOUNDED in Latvia as a “social question and answer” website. Users have the option of sending each other questions anomalously.

Its tolerance of anonymity was heavily criticised when its use was linked to several teenage suicides in Ireland, Britain and the US.

The then Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald, wrote to the Latvian communications minster in late 2012 after two Irish teenagers, Ciara Pugsley (15) inLeitrim and Erin Gallagher (13) in Donegal, took their own lives.

The company, which has relocated headquarters to DUBLIN, has introduced new safety policies since it was acquired by IAC, owner of Ask.com, 2014. Prior to her APPOINTMENT, Ms Mullins had spent more than 15 years advising the British government and non-governmental organisations on safety of adolescents online,

Speaking in Galway, she identified MENTAL HEALTH issues and extremism as among the greatest challenges in ensuring YOUNG people’s safety.

Targeting of young people by Islamic State (ISIS) through social media was “enormous”, in that it was “highly sophisticated and very targeted”, she said.

Young children often felt more “alive” online, she explained, and were seeking help for issues, or using the internet for the wrong reasons and coming into contact with the “wrong people”.

She cited as an example a case in Galway which she dealt with recently, where a young boy from difficult family circumstances was harassing a girl on social media.

He was known to be quiet and shy, but had been able to “explore himself in a very different, aggressive way online” that was reflecting “some issues that were going on in his life”, she NOTED.

“People’s lives don’t just arrive at the internet on social media,” Ms Mullins explained. “They come with all the baggage… all the tensions, feelings and internal issues they’ve got in their lives,” she said.

Ask. fm had INVESTED in safety, including filtering, moderating and tackling bullying, she said, but acknowledged that anonymous use of the network was still an issue.

YOUNG people trusted the anonymous factor in allowing them to ask questions that they might not otherwise be able to ask, she said.

“In a world that is quite FULL of conflict at the moment… anonymity is quite important from a freedom of speech perspective,” she said.

(As noted by a commenter below, the Supreme Court is just Nova Scotia’s first level of trial court, rather than the province’s highest court.) The law’s original wording was so broad it had the potential to “make bullies of us all,” as MacLean’s Jessie Brown put it when the law went into effect.

The law — hastily pushed through the legislative system in response to a cyberbullying victim’s suicide — contained this passage, which was open-ended enough to criminalize all sorts of previously-protected speech:

…any electronic communication through the use of technology including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, computers, other electronic devices, social networks, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and electronic mail, typically repeated or with CONTINUING effect, that is intended or ought reasonably [to] be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person’s health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation, and includes assisting or encouraging such communication in any way.

As attorney Karen Bennett-Clayton explains, this wording eliminates nearly every form of defense against cyberbullying allegations. (via Barry Sookman)

This definition of cyberbullying captures a wide range of communication, from the truly insidious statements calculated to cause fear and intimidation to statements that are simply embarrassing or somehow harmful to the recipient’s emotional well-being. The definition contains no requirement to show motive or intent, nor does it require that the communication be false or misleading. On a plain reading of it, true statements could be considered cyberbullying so long as they are repeated and are distressing or harmful to someone’s self-esteem. Moreover, and as it includes those who “assist” in such communications, the definition is also arguably broad enough to include those who publish the electronic communication, such as WEB HOSTSor internet service providers (ISPs).

Safeguards that are typically seen in defamation and harassment laws are completely missing from Nova Scotia’s cyberbullying law — which would explain why a person who felt himself a victim of defamation or harassment might take the easier route and use the badly-written cyberbullying law to shut down his “bully,” instead. And that’s true, even though much of what was said had not risen to the level of defamation, and much of what was contested occurred before the law went into effect. 

The court examined the law and the protective order issued by a  justice of the peace and found both wanting. As for the law’s wording itself, the Supreme Court found it too inclusive to be anywhere near reasonable and, in fact, a threat to normally protected speech. While the law is in place to address cyberbullying, the definition is vague enough to cover far more than internet communications. This has the potential to stymie news reporting through traditional channels, as well as cover “communications” never intended to be included in the cyberbullying law.

Both the ordinary meaning of “electronic” and the inclusive definition capture uses of electricity for communication that were common long before cyberspace (1984). Here are a few examples from the old days: cylinder phonograph records (1877); disc gramophone records (1894) including 78s (1898), long plays (1948), singles (1949), and extended plays (1952); studio cast recordings (1943 or before); broadcasting by way of commercial radio (1920s), commercial television (1928), walkie-talkie (1940), and citizens’ band (1948), and, of COURSE; telegraph (1834) and telephone (1876), including fax (1964). All of these are within the definition of “electronic”, at least when it is read literally.

The Supreme Court CONTINUES, providing examples of how this badly-written law could be twisted to cover nearly every form of communication imaginable, so long as the communication itself causes “fear, intimidation or distress.”

The first thing to note in the definition of cyberbullying is the disconnect between the ordinary meaning of the word and the literal definition. One who communicates electronically, whether it be by text MESSAGE or telephone, and says something reasonably expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, or distress is a cyberbully.

The next thing to note is the absence of conditions or qualifications ordinarily part of the meaning of bullying. Truth does not appear to matter. Motive does not appear to matter. Repetition or continuation might (“repeated or with CONTINUING effect”) or might not (“typically”) matter. A neighbour who calls to warn that smoke is coming from your upstairs windows causes fear. A lawyer who sends a demand letter by fax or e-mail causes intimidation. I expect Bob Dylan caused humiliation to P. F. Sloan when he released “Positively 4th Street”, just as a local on-line newspaper causes humiliation when it reports that someone has been charged with a vile offence. Each is a cyberbully, according to the literal meaning of the definitions, no matter the GOOD intentions of the neighbour, the just demand of the lawyer, or the truthfulness of Mr. Dylan or the newspaper.

As the court sees it, the law demands the inclusion of a motivation — malice — and yet, its hurried passage failed to include this key element. Adding in that factor goes against the justice of the peace’s decision and nullifies the issued protective order.

The evidence does not malice as required, according to my interpretation, for a FINDING of cyberbullying after August 6, 2013. Firstly, the events after that date, except for the mikemacdonald1975@hushmail.com e-mail, are relatively mild. Secondly, the full correspondence between Mr. Baha’i and Mr. Fraser about removal, which Justice of the Peace Gass did not see, shows efforts by Mr. Baha’i, an unanswered request for SUGGESTIONS, and statements of Mr. Fraser’s ASSESSMENT of Mr. Baha’i’s liabilities closing the discussion. This correspondence is inconsistent with malice on Mr. Baha’i’s part.

Mr. Self chose his forum. It is one in which Mr. Baha’i is entitled to disclosure and discovery, to fully test the many allegations. Unlike Cyber-safety Act proceedings, it is one in which the parties can find out who is behindmikemacdonald1975@hushmail.com, rather than speculate. It is also a forum in which serious risk of defamatory repetition could be controlled by interim injunction, without the ex parte one-sidedness of the Cyber-safety Act. Despite this, the cyber protection order prevents Mr. Baha’i from communicating with the very PERSON who is suing him.

The evidence satisfies me that malicious repetition by Mr. Baha’i is unlikely. Unlike Justice of the Peace Gass on the ex parte application, I have a full picture of the attempts to satisfy Mr. Fraser’s demands on behalf of Mr. Self. Whether he can force Mr. Baha’i to expunge what is not in his control, and whether he can recover damages against Mr. Baha’i for third party reproductions, risk of repetition by Mr. Baha’i is not in issue. Also, unlike the justice, I take into ACCOUNT that the Cyber-safety Act was not law when Mr. Baha’i was active on the present subject.

Summing up, the Supreme Court finds Nova Scotia’s cyberbullying law — as written — to be a threat to protected speech.

In my assessment, the damage caused by the cyber protection order to Mr. Baha’i’s constitutional right to free speech and to his property right to use his own equipment outweighs the potential harm to Mr. Self if Mr. Baha’i is able to communicate freely. Justice requires that the order be revoked.

This fixes one of the major holes in the law, and restores much-needed protections for uninvolved third-parties (social media platforms, ISPs) who can’t, by definition, show malice by hosting or transmitting communications made illegal by this law. 

Unfortunately, it doesn’t address another of its major flaws — the wholly ex parte accusation process, which can result in severe penalties for the accused (loss of internet connection or access to electronic devices, gag orders, etc.) without being allowed to present their side of the issue in court.

 

She is currently drawing up legislation to make bullying on social media a CRIMINAL offence.

Senator Higgins – WHO is a qualified barrister – herself has been the victim of a barrage of abusive messages on Facebook and Twitter over the past year, some of which threatened sexual violence against her.

“It’s widespread now, and social media companies are shirking their responsibilities. Since I spoke up [about being harassed herself online], I’ve had a number of people CONTACT me,” she told the Galway City Tribune.

“People who would be head of student groups, and one guy who is fairly disabled – they’ve been trying to undermine him and what he says, calling him a ‘cripple’.

“One girl gave me ‘screen grabs’ of what was being said about her, it was AWFUL.

“These bullies need to be held ACCOUNTABLE, because it is having an impact on the mental health and wellbeing of people.

“I’m used to being lampooned and criticised, that goes with the job description now, but I was receiving direct threats and abusive MESSAGES and threats of sexual violence. And these were from ‘real’ Facebook profiles, not anonymous ACCOUNTS,” said Senator Higgins.

She hopes to send the wording of her proposed anti-bullying legislation to Cabinet ministers next WEEK. The draft legislation proposes that any electronic communication designed to cause serious distress or anxiety will be a criminal offence.

“I’m not trying to curtail freedom of speech. There is a big difference between that and people who feel they can say anything they want.

“In my experience, social media companies have shirked their RESPONSIBILITIES completely when it comes to providing a duty of care to their users. This has been made abundantly clear to me in recent days.

“Two weeks ago, I wrote to Twitter and Facebook as a result of the inordinate number of messages I received from people who have been subjected to online abuse. Among the questions I asked were: How many complaints they have received; what is the average length of time it takes to investigate a complaint and how many complaints have referred to the Garda authorities?

“To DATE, they have either failed, refused and or neglected to provide me with this information. Their reluctance to acknowledge any duty of care to their users is quite simply baffling,” said Senator Higgins.

Last month, Gardaí conducted a ‘sweep’ of Senator Higgins’ home in Galway FOLLOWING the threats, and suggested she should carry a personal alarm.

Meanwhile, the Lions Clubs across the country have launched a nationwide bullying INFORMATION campaign.

Specially-commissioned INFORMATION leaflets on bullying and cyber-bulling will be distributed to all houses with school-going children of vulnerable age by Lions Clubs.

Pat Connolly, Lions Suicide Prevention and Anti-Bullying Officer in Galway said: “ “School principals have been very positive about the initiative and have given the project their full support. The leaflet contains vital information for parents including advice on identifying bullying problems, DEALING effectively with a bullying issue and information on public policy in relation to bullying.”

With the advent of social media, however, bullying has gotten more intense, especially for LGBTQ teens. National statistics show LGBTQ teens are two times more likely to be harassed. These problems are continuing on to the university level.

Lawmakers have introduced legislation to combat bullying on college campuses. The bill is named after Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers student who killed himself after being violated online.

“We want to make sure everyone has equal access to that quality education,” said Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI). “You shouldn’t be bullied for who you are.”

The bill would require any school that receives federal funding to establish policies to prohibit harassment on campus. This would include actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.

The bill would also give funds to universities and colleges to establish programs to teach students about bullying, especially bullying online.

“This is about schools looking at the way young people communicate and making sure that colleges, universities are safe for all students and safe,” said Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

National statistics also show that one in five college students is bullied. Many advocacy groups have already expressed support for this bill. Below is a list.

-Human Rights Campaign
-The Anti-Defamation League
-The National Women’s Law Center
-The American Association for University Women, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
-The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
-The National LGBTQ Task Force Action
-Pride Foundation

Both the University of Wisconsin Madison and Eau Claire have gotten a head start on the bill and have stepped forward to look at these policies and implement them.