Free Speech & Privacy Sacrificed in Nova Scotia Anti-bullying Law
In November, 2011, a then 15-year old teenager in Nova Scotia Rehtaeh Parsons went with a girlfriend to a party with four teenage boys. There was a lot of drinking. [Where were the parents?] At one point, the girlfriend saw Rehtaeh naked and laughing with two of the boys on the bed. She urged her to leave. Later, she returned with her mother and they both failed tro persuade the now drunk girl to leave. She later had sex with two of the boys and vomited out the window,. One of the boys circulated a cellphone photo of a half naked male pressing up against the bottom of a girl .Word got around that Rehtaeh was a “slut”. She became the object of numerous caustic remarks. Was it rape? This April, a despondent Rehtaeh hanged herself. The accusation of cyberbullying went viral.
Christie Blatchford reported: “But Postmedia sources point to huge problems with the case that made it virtually impossible to take to court, chiefly the shifting accounts from Rehtaeh herself and independent evidence, including retrieved online messages, that supported the suggestion the sex that took place was consensual. Even the notorious cell phone picture, first sent by one of the alleged assailants and re-circulated thereafter, shows virtually nothing that would stand up in court. The photo is of a male naked from the waist down, giving a thumbs-up sign, pressing into the bare behind of another person who is leaning out a window. What the picture doesn’t reveal, however, is a recognizable face, if there even was a sexual assault going on, or if the second person was a female.” (National Post, April 26, 2013)
A panicking Nova Scotia socialist government brought in the Cyber-safety Act which poses huge threats to privacy and free speech. What is it about so many Canadians that their commitment to free speech is a mile wide and half an inch deep. The proposed law might make persistent tweets or Facebook messages that Stephen Harper is a “control freak” actionable as an electronic communication that could reasonably be expected to cause” harm to another person’s health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.” “Self-esdteem” “reputation” — even truthful criticisms of others could have the Nova Scotia goon squad descending on your dwelling without a warrant to seize your computer or cellphone.
The Globe and Mail (May 8,. 2013) wisely editorialized: “But the proposed Cyber-safety Act has draconian search-and-seizure elements with major implications for freedom of speech – accused bullies would in effect be silenced by the state. The government could obtain ex parte court orders against alleged bullies, and a five-member investigative squad would have the power (again without notice to the alleged bullies) to enter homes and remove computers and cellphones. Investigators could obtain records of everything an individual has done on the Internet. They could obtain all texts that a purported bully sent and received.
It’s tough stuff. The act would impose liability on the parents of children accused of engaging in cyberbullying. Are parents to be required to spy on their children, to pore over their cellphone texts, to peer at every message sent on Facebook?
Provincial legislators … no doubt wish to deliver a strong blow against cyberbullying. Online bullying has a destructive power that no one should underestimate, and the Criminal Code’s many tools, including anti-harassment provisions, have for some reason barely been used to combat this form of bullying. But Nova Scotia lawmakers should ask themselves some tough questions as they head down a very new road in Canadian law. Perhaps they believe that only the most extreme cases would be taken up. The proposed law is, however, incredibly broad. Cyberbullying is defined as any electronic communication intended to, or that could reasonably have been 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 it applies to bullying of adults, too.
Will fair comment be protected? What about satire of public figures such as the famous and legally acceptable editorial cartoon of premier William Vander Zalm pulling the wings off a fly? Would an animal-rights group be able to campaign against the owner of a factory farm, or anti-abortionists against an abortion provider? Is it worth the risks to free speech to create a new, intrusive (and expensive) state bureaucracy?”
