Cyberbullying: The Shades of Harm

Abstract

Empirical studies undertaken to date report that exposure to cyberbullying can have potentially serious consequences. This paper assesses the potential harm associated with the various specific manifestations (forms) of cyberbullying based on initial empirical research and a crime seriousness framework originally applied to traditional crimes. The analysis provides valuable theoretical insight into the associated harms of each of the forms of cyberbullying. This is significant in light of the infancy of the research in this area. The research demonstrates that the various manifestations are indeed associated with different levels of harm. It concludes that, based on a principle of harm, not all forms warrant criminalization.

Key words:

• computer crime
• criminal law
• cyberbullying
• online harm

Notes

1. For the purposes of this article reference to the harm principle, as a dominant justification within criminal law theory, provides a standard to which the various forms of cyberbullying are held and acts as a guide as to which forms may warrant criminalization.

2. It is possible to argue that cyberbullying is also a collective harm in the sense that society as a whole suffers when standards of behaviour fall below what is generally regarded as “acceptable” behaviour.

3. For the purposes of the discussion it is not necessary to evaluate which mental states belong to the category of “hurts” and which belong to “offences”. Feinberg also includes a category of “other unpleasants” in his framework of “other disliked but not harmful” conditions. Feinberg refers to this category so as to include the many miscellaneous disliked but not harmful states of mind that can be produced by the actions of another which may not fit into the main categories of “hurts” or “offences” (Feinberg, 1984, p. 47).

4. “Modes” of cyberbullying are distinguishable from “forms” of cyberbullying discussed earlier in the paper. “Modes” of cyberbullying refers to the various channels through which cyberbullying can be carried out. For example, cyberbullying via websites; SMS text messages, email, picture/video clip, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, social networking sites.

5. “Cyberstalking,” “exclusion,” “masquerading” or “impersonation”, and “outing” and “trickery” were not examined in the study.

6. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is now known as the Standing Council on Law and Justice (SCLJ).

7. For example, Schoolboys counselled on net pics, MX Newspaper, 21 February 2002; Teen put on gay site may lead to camera ban, Herald Sun (Melbourne), 11 June 2003, 25; Parents warned over online beach photos, The Age (Melbourne), 27 January 2005.

8. These factors were also recently discussed by Bluett-Boyd, Fileborn, B., Quadara, A., and Moore (2013), p. 36.

9. Unreported case. See, Aston (2012).

10. It would be difficult to apply a ridged formula to matters which involve qualitative judgement.

11. Note, many “happy slapping” instances involve an assault of a very serious nature. Where serious or grave harm is inflicted, the analysis would produce an even higher aggregate level of harm associated with the physical assault component and, in turn, result in a higher level of net harm for “happy slapping”. The physical assault component of “happy slapping” is punishable in all Australia jurisdictions.

12. It is more likely that a perpetrator will threaten “to kill” a victim, “break a victim's arm/leg”, “beat up” a victim, “shoot” a victim, etc. (threaten serious injury in order to intimidate a victim) than to threaten injury of a less serious nature (such threats are less likely to intimidate a victim).