The recent US case where a housewife posed as a teenage boy, Josh Evans, to send hostile emails, prompting the suicide of a vulnerable 13-year-old girl, has brought about the first cyber-bullying prosecution in US history. No such case has yet been seen in the UK but Susan Hall, partner and media law expert at Cobbetts LLP, believes it will only be a matter of time before we have to deal with such an issue on home soil and questions the UK’s legal capabilities of dealing with it.
The internet, which encourages long distance interaction, has made it incredibly easy for individuals to pass themselves off as other, completely different, people. With sites such as Second Life actively encouraging people to adopt fictional online persona, it is not surprising that more and more negative cases of second online identities are coming to light. Even where an online identity is acknowledged to be part of a game, people still react with them as though they were real people. Cases where the ‘sock-puppet’ identity is actively promoted as a real person, with which other people form emotional bonds, the dangers of damage are even greater.
Worryingly, one charity that works to prevent suicide, reports that there have been at least 17 deaths in Britain since 2001 involving chatrooms that give advice and actively encourage people to take their own lives whilst, an entire language has been created to describe the deliberate action of provoking and bullying others online. (See online vocabulary below).
The Josh Evans case, a classic ‘sock puppet’ and sinister example calls into question whether the UK’s legal system should be more specific in order to deal with an increasing number of online bullying cases.
In the US, Lori Drew, the woman who posed as Josh Evans, faces a relatively light sentence after being convicted of only three of seven cases brought against her. She will serve a maximum sentence of a year’s imprisonment and a $100,000 (£65,000) fine for each of her offences.
The US law concerned was the equivalent of the UK’s computer misuse act 1990. Doubts have been expressed as to whether this is a relevant legislation as it directed predominately at hacking and similar cases.
If a case such as this came about in the UK, the offence would fall under the 1997 Prevention Of Harassment Act and the punishment could, in fact, be even more lenient. The Prevention Of Harassment Act is designed to cover a whole range of offences. It distinguishes between someone making a nuisance of themselves - with a sentence of a maximum of six month’s imprisonment and a fine - and someone who makes an individual fear an act of violence, which is considered a more serious offence and for which offenders are subject to a maximum of five years imprisonment.
However, given the growing problem of cyber bullying the use of the term ‘violence’ should here be clarified. It should include not only acts of physical violence, but also prolonged, emotionally violent campaigns that cause mental distress. Appropriate punishments specific to online harassment should be considered for people caught cyber bullying and appropriate penalities, equivalent to those that forbid people who have been caught hacking from using computers, should be introduced.
Social networking sites themselves also have to be aware of and support the law. Whilst it is fair to say that some sites, for example Live Journal, are proactive and have set up abuse teams and agreed strategies with law enforcement in order to allow officials to intervene if suicide is threatened, other sites are not so responsible.
The Josh Evans case must be seen as a wake up call. As our lives become more complex with online profiles and second identities both in our personal and business lives, we need more protection from the people who are out to damage reputations or cause harm to people and it is the legal system that must initiate this.
For further information contact:
Susan Hall
Tel: 0845 165 5409
E-mail: susan.hall@cobbetts.com