Bullying Using the Internet

Laws made rashly in response to a “crisis” are almost certainly done so harmfully.

OK, here are some thoughts:

I don't think that a catalogue of forbidden expressions is very helpful.

In general I think that in the internet everything should be as legal or illegal as it is 'in real life' (or better: AFK).

Something inappropriate said on the school yard would be treated differently as if the very same thing was printed as an open letter in the local newspaper.

The same should apply to the internet.

Typing something nasty in a chat is different from posting a comment on a popular board (which - impact wise - could be compared to a graffiti in the neighbourhood) or a blog post, which would more correspond to a letter in the newspaper (if not as an article).

Different rules apply to different ways to 'materialise' or publish something.

In general I would find it agreeable to say that everything that can be linked to and archived should be treated similar to any publication on paper in regards of deciding if something is covered by the freedom of expression or not.

If we, as I suggest, parallelise the criteria to judge what is OK and what is not with rules applied to the press, we must make clear that the similarities end there.

In the press, the first person responsible would be the editor, not the author. That would be totally inappropriate for the internet. It would mean that any one maintaining a site with a commentary functionality would have to approve every single comment before making it public and in doing so make him/her-self fully responsible for the content. NOT ACCEPTABLE. The only person responsible must be the author.

Now one could say that if that shall be the case, then publishing something anonymously should be prohibited. So every site owner who wants people to allow to comment on the site would need to force them to create an account and then verify the identity before allowing the first comment? NO WAY. Anonymous publishing must always be allowed in the internet. This is non-negotiable.
If a case of harassment is severe enough to be a crime, then law enforcement can get the IP ownership information from the ISP. That should be good enough.

Perhaps it would be acceptable that a site owner with commentary functionality would need to provide a contact e-mail address on the site where an abusive comment could be brought to his/her attention. If the site owner wouldn't take the incriminated comment down in a reasonable time, he would make himself responsible in the way an editor of a newspaper would be.

Any thoughts?

The ability to post anonymously is needed to protect political activists, whistle blowers etc who are rightly in fear of persecution for their activities. Extending this right to people who abuse anonymity in order to bully and abuse is endangering this right. There is no need for anyone making a point or an argument to make an ad hominem attack.

In social media and similar on line forums the operators should remove anonymity from users who abuse and bully others. Failure to do so should open those operators to civil measures to allow the victims to seek redress in the courts.

Following the discussion in Germany I find that there are regularly voices popping up at many occasions who raise concerns about anonymity in the internet.

I think it is important to oppose those attempts to establish over-regulations in general.

I don't think that social media or site owners should be responsible for uncovering the identity of their users. This would require to raise and verify that information for every user in the first place. Not good.

Low enforcement agencies have adequate means to gather the required information from the ISPs based on court orders. That should be sufficient. If it isn't, well, then that is a different discussion.

To make that point a little bit clearer: If a site owner is either responsible of the content of comments published on his site or has to make sure that he can identify a potential culprit to run the site, then running a private site as a hobbyist becomes a dangerous thing and many would abstain from running a site. This would affect the freedom of speech on a higher level.

One great thing about the internet that we embrace (I assume) is the fact that people can publish to the world with minimal efforts, which changes the world to a good degree - and to the better. I regard it as core PP policy to protect that eco-system.

As I've said before, I reject the propaganda phrase "cyberbullying". When people get bullied at school it isn't called "edubullying" or somesuch. It's just bullying. I've changed the discussion title to reflect this.

Let's look at how this has become an issue. Two things: a) kids have started using internet sites designed for adults (eg FB) and b) kids are being given handheld computers ("smartphones"), which allow them to use the internet without parental guidance.

I don't think we need to accept the framing of a spectrum with free expression at one end, and bullying on the other. I think we can defend online anonymity without hesitation, pointing out that users (or their parents) are responsible for their emotional safety, and that no would be trying to hold the medium responsible if the same bullying comments were being made with paint on a wall.