1

Entry No 33

2nd LRC Law Reform Essay Competition 2015

Should Hong Kong legislate on cyber-bullying?

If so, how?

2

Contents

Session

Page No.

A INTRODUCTION

3

B A PORTRAIT OF CYBER-BULLYING 1. THE NATURE AND FORMS OF CYBER-BULLYING 2. HONG KONG UNDER MICROSCOPE

4-7

C INADEQUACY OF EXISTING LEGAL REMEDIES IN HONG KONG 1. INTIMIDATION 2. DEFAMATION 3. INVASION OF PRIVACY

7-10

D HUNTING THE CYBER-BULLIES 1. NEW CRIMINAL OFFENCE UNNECESSARY 2. NEW CIVIL LAW REGIME - LIABILITY FOR CYBER-BULLY

10-14

E CYBER COMMUNICATION TRIBUNAL 1. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS – FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

14-16

F

G

H

INDISPENSABLE ROLES OF SCHOOLS AND PARENTS CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY

16-17

17 18-20

3

A. Introduction Cyber-bullying, one of the most catastrophic forms of cyber crimes, is ubiquitous in our century. While the boundary between online and offline has never been demarcated absolutely, legislation on this anti-social behavior is called for. The paper first (Part B) provides a general portrait of cyber-bullying from an international perspective, by examining its nature and forms, followed by a discussion of the subject’s prevalence in Hong Kong. The second part of the paper (Part C) serves to demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing legal remedies in categories of intimidation, defamation and invasion of privacy. It establishes the crucial need of legislative intervention. Detailed recommendations on legislation against the cyber-bullies are then examined (Part D) by discussing the inappropriateness of creating a new criminal offence and by proposing a new civil law regime. The next part (Part E) proposes to set up a Cyber Communication Tribunal that allows the victim to seek relief outside the courtrooms. A balance between right restriction and freedom of speech is also under scrutiny. This paper ends by (Part F) recommending an imposition of statutory responsibility on schools and parents.

4

B. A portrait of cyber-bullying 1. The nature and forms of cyber-bullying Defining cyber-bullying has been a hard task for almost every state legislature that intended to enact laws on this controversial area. Despite a lack of universal definition, it would be of considerable worth to make reference to the 2013 Cyber-Safety Act introduced in Nova Scotia, which defines cyber-bullying as ‘any electronic communication that is intended or ought reasonably 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…’ 1 Cyber-bullying is often seen as an extension of traditional bullying which infiltrates the victims’ private space beyond physical build and without face-to-face confrontations. It is this feature that often attracts hundreds and thousands of aggressors against a single victim. There is an old assumption that bullying only affects minors and occurs in the schoolyard. This explains why New South Wales, Australia and 37 states in the United States enacted legislation specifically directed at cyber-bullying in schools. This assumption is however outdated. There is a proven continuum from childhood to adolescence to adulthood in terms of cyber-bullying.2 Cyber-bullying can be manifested in multiple fronts. Typical criminal behaviors associated with cyber-bullying include harassment and intimidation. Examples include abusive text messages or photos and videos featuring nude, dead and mutilated bodies of victims or other persons with the intention of abusing, stigmatizing and threatening the victims. Besides social networks, phones and electronic mail, other channels include online forums, video-sharing websites and rating/polling sites such as “Babe vs. Babe” and “Pick the Hottie”. Defamation and invasion of privacy is another disturbing practice of cyber-bullying. Perpetrators often dispose victims’ personal details in

1 Cyber-safety Act, SNS 2013, c 2, at s 3. 2 Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

5

spread of rumors, libel or gossip that may injure the victims’ reputation. The Canadian high school student David Knight who was defamed as a homosexual and a rapist was an example. As a result, he was devastated by the psychological pressure and withdrew completely.3

Another growing practice of cyber-bullying is what known as ‘happy slapping’ – videotaping a physical assault and posting it online. The 2013 suicide case of Nova Scotian girl Rehtaeh Parsons was the most recent instance. She was sexually assaulted by four boys, after which a photo of the attack was posted on the social media. Enduring ferocious humiliation, the 17-year-old girl was driven to commit suicide.4

There is an established link between cyber-bullying and depression, loss of self-worth, psychosomatic problems5 and suicidal ideation.6 In a high tech landscape where overt bullying mirrors the power abuse in real world, minorities - namely the children, women, homosexuals and ethic minority - are in a particularly vulnerable position.7 A study in Finland found that 16 per cent of female teenage were bullied by boys, but a mere 5 per cent in the converse.8 Clearly, the injustice and power imbalance inherent in cyber-bullying acts are beyond the society’s tolerance. 2. Hong Kong under microscope

Calamitous cases of mental disorder and suicide were fortunately out of the scene in Hong Kong. 5 years from 2008 to 2012, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data only received a total of four cases, 3 of which were dropped due to a lack of sufficient evidence and the inability to identify the complainee.

However, Allan Chiang, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, warned that cases of cyber-bullying is on the rise and called for a multi-

3 Shariff, Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, Routledge 4 Winterdyk, John. Juvenile Justice: International Perspectives, Models, and Trends 5 Litwiller and Brausch, “Cyber Bullying in Adolescent Suicide, 675–684, 675. 6 Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012a). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed)). Malden, MA 7 Danielle Keats Citron, ‘Cyber Civil Rights’ (2009) 61 Boston University Law Review 62, 64, 89. 8 Andre Sourander et al, ‘Childhood Bullying Behavior’, Archives of General Psychiatry 1005–1012

6

pronged approach to the issue. He confirmed a five-fold increase in the number of cyberbullying cases, from 6 in 2013 to 34 in 2014. Exceptionally in Hong Kong, the escalating trend can be attributed to the political events that broke out in the last quarter of 2014. The Office annouced that 28 out of 34 complaints of cyberbullying were either connected with the Occupy Central movement or of a political nature.9 In one incident, a real estate agent posted the address of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, a founder of the student group Scholarism on Facebook. The incident subsequently triggered 18 complaints from the public. 10 On the other hand, it is worthy to note that the rate of cyber-bullying which prompted criminal investigations is inaccessible. The Hong Kong Police Force does not maintain any statistics in relation to cyber-bullying, for it is not an offence under existing laws. Unlike western countries whose reported cases encompass the most common forms of intimidation and defamation, Hong Kong has encountered a rather unique form of cyberbullying known as ‘human flesh search engine’, a term originated from Mainland China. Thousands of Internet users respond to a call seeking to identify an individual engaged in social delinquents and to expose him to the malignant cyber trial11. Victim’s personal details – name, address, workplace, family members and many more – are completely exposed on the Internet, followed by malevolent humiliation and threats. The victim’s safety is also endangered by criminal acts in the offline world, thanks to the privacy leakage. The Golden Forum, a discussion forum based in Hong Kong, is one of the most popular channels of human flesh search. For instances, cyber-bullying in the form of human flesh search engine had in the past hunted down a cat abuser, an adolescent despising elderly in a park, a student reluctant to give up his seat on a bus, and a bride-to-be who limited on the amount of cash gift for her wedding banquet 12

9 A written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, December 19, 2012 <http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201212/19/P201212190360.htm> 10 Ibid. 11 Bai, Ji. Human flesh engine: An Internet lynching? Xinhua News. 12 <https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyinginhongkong/home/hong-kong-cases>

7

How is Hong Kong comparing to the international standard? There is no official statistics on the perpetration rate. However, a survey in 2011 showed that 32 per cent of secondary school respondents had been victims of cyber-bullying. A similar study by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups in 2010 reported a number as close as 30 per cent. Comparing to the similar statistics in United States (25%)13, New Zealand (10%)14, Canada (17%)15, countries that either have cyber-bullying bills in review or legislation in force, Hong Kong’s condition is in alarm.

In any event, the escalating number of privacy invasion aggravated by the prevalence of ‘human flesh research’ shall warrant the necessity of state intervention. The Hong Kong legislature shall be compelled to take action.

C. Inadequacy of existing legal remedies in Hong Kong There is no statute law that governs cyber-bullying in Hong Kong. If the acts involve criminal offences, they would be governed by relevant criminal ordinances. For cases of civil wrong, the victim may pursue civil litigations as legal recourse. By virtue of the multi-faceted manifestations of cyber-bullying in different regions, this discussion centers on criminal and civil wrongs exhibited by the most common forms of cyber-bullying in Hong Kong: intimidation, defamation and invasion of privacy. 1. Intimidation In Hong Kong, under s.24 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap200), a person may be guilty of criminal intimidation if the perpetrator threatens another with injury to his person, reputation, or property. Such a threat suffices if the victim is alarmed that such a threat is likely to be carried out or if the perpetrator had the specific intent to take the threat seriously. However, in cases of harassment where the element of threat is absent, the above provisions are inapplicable (R v Chan Kai Hing16). In typical scenarios, perpetrators who constantly sends abusive text messages and photos, though places the victim in extreme fear and 13 BHAT et. al. (2010). Addressing Cyberbullying as a Media Literacy Issue, Vol.58, No.3. 14 Dr Janis Carroll-Lind School Safety, Office of the Children’s Commissioner, 2009 15 Hanley, J.A. (2010) Cyberbullying – A Global Concern 16 [1997] 3 HKC 575

8

humiliation, would not be charged under s.24 if threats were not advanced. Even if the perpetrators have threatened their victims, they must also have possessed the specific intent, an element that is formidable to prove beyond reasonable doubt. However, intimidation can be established as a civil law action under Wilkison v Downtown17. Any act done or word said directly or indirectly, with the intention of inflicting bodily and psychiatric harm, incurs tortious liability. Under the orthodox view, however, the court encounters the same difficulty if the element of threat is missing. Although the courts in Pidduck v Molloy18 and Burris v Azadani 19appear to suggest that the law is not limited to acts or threats of assault and that the court would protect the victims’ legitimate interests even when the defendants’ acts are not tortious, the scope and defences to such a tort have never litigated in courts. The precise remedies to cyber-bullying victims remain dubious. 2. Defamation In Hong Kong, defamation is in essence a civil action in tort law. Although defamation law is also a criminal offense under the Defamation Ordinance (21), prosecution is extremely rare. A defamatory statement is one that tends to ‘lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally’ (Sim v Stretch20). While the meaning of the statement shall be read in the eyes of a hypothetical reasonable reader (Yam Chi Ming Stephen v Sing Pao Newspaper Co Ltd21, the plaintiff must also establish publication to a third person. An offensive text message or email therefore would not constitute defamation. Notwithstanding the fact that mere ridicule does not usually give rise to defamation, pictures exposing a person to ridicule can constitute libel (Parmiter v Coupland22).

17 [1897] 2 Q.B. 57 18 [1992] 2 FLR 202 CA 19 [1995] 4 All ER 802 20 [1936] 2 All ER 1237 21 [2006] 3 HKC 10 22 [1840] 6 M & W 105

9

However, actions of defamation shall fail if the website shows that the remark could only be viewed as a joke, for it would fall short of the legal meaning of defamatory, without lowering the plaintiff in the mind of right-thinking members of the society. One may recall the deplorable experience by the Canadian high school student David Knight. The website was named ‘Welcome to the Page that Makes Fun of Dave Knight’, making it explicit that the remark only intended to be a joke. Albeit an imputation of misfortune is actionable in normal circumstances (Youssoupoff v Metro23), the claim would fail. In Hong Kong, there are no statutes that govern the duty of ISPs. In most countries, ISPs operate on a voluntary and self-regulatory basis. However, ISPs may also be held liable for defamation claims. In Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd 24and subsequently Bunt v Tilley25, the court instilled a notion of knowing participation on ISPs. In Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd 26, the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that liability for defamation would attach to an ISP once it had been notified of the request for removal but failed to comply within a reasonable time. In spite of the successful cases of litigations, defamation law is confined inevitably to situations where the offenders are identifiable within the jurisdiction. Moreover, victims are often discouraged by the cumbrous and costly litigation, as evidenced by the fact that lawsuits against ISPs were mostly brought by corporates instead of individuals. 3. Invasion of Privacy Infringement of privacy is the most prevalent behavior of cyber-bullying in Hong Kong. Besides the problem of happy slapping, the emergence of the human flesh search engine, a phenomenon common in Chinese communities, poses a menace to the individuals’ privacy. In many cases, they even tore apart the victims’ lives.

23 [1934] 50 TLR 581 24 [2001] QB 201 25 [2007] 1 WLR 1243 26 [2013] 5 HKC 253

10

In Hong Kong, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 496) provides a procedure for complaints about the misuse of personal data. If the cyber-bullying acts are in breach of the Ordinance and the data protection principles (DPPs), the victim may file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. Breaches of the Ordinance can create civil and/or criminal liability. However, the Ordinance only binds a data user, which according to s.2, defined as ‘a person who, either alone or jointly or in common with other persons, controls the collection, holding, processing or use of the data’. In the context of the powerful human flesh search, in which thousands of anonymous individuals contributed to the disclosure of a subject’s personal data, it is equivocal who the data user is. The Ordinance is also silent on the duty of ISPs in such circumstances. At any rate, the identification of perpetrators is costly and often impossible, taking into consideration that defenders may create false profiles or engage in malicious impersonation. In such situations, remedies under the Ordinance is almost doomed to failure. D. Hunting the cyber-bullies The law has in various aspects struggled to keep apace with technological advances. Introducing legislation on cyber-bullying is a crucial task, given the multifaceted nature of cyber-bullying, its devastating consequences and growing prevalence. 1. New criminal offence unnecessary Criminal prosecution is deemed to be the most direct response to bullying behavior. On one hand, it effectively deters bullying behaviors by prosecution and sanction. The very involvement of police in criminal investigation and arrest provides an immediate and emergent intervention of bullying acts, without having to go through the cumbersome and lengthy civil litigation process. This also grants the victims a sense of security and precludes catastrophic cases of mental distress and suicide from realizing.

11

A new criminal offence also addresses the inadequacy of a criminal intimidation charge under s.24 of Crimes Ordinance. Although the Government has expressed desire to legislate on stalking, a new criminal offense specific on cyber-bullying could provide the most adequate protection.27 Indeed, New Zealand has recently (2013) proposed a bill that makes it an offence to send messages or material online which is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false. Offenders could be imprisoned for up to three months n, or face a $2,000 fine. 15 states across the United States also have laws in place that makes cyber-bullying a crime. 28 However, the option of new criminal offence would necessarily signal that the child offenders have to face criminal sanction. The appropriateness of the adoption of a purely coercive or punitive approach to deal with ‘kiddie crimes’ is doubted.29 Despite the forcefulness of criminal sanction, one should note that child offenders are also children who need help. Although the age of criminal culpability under Juvenile Offence Ordinance offers child offenders under 14 years old some sorts of protection, the punitive approach is arguably too extreme a consequence for young offenders who are often unintentional and uninformed in their bullying actions. Child rights advocates also reminded us of the Government’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child30. Under Article 3, in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by courts of laws or legislative bodies, the ‘best interests of the child’ shall be a primary consideration. This calls for the balance of children’s rights to free expression and empowerment through preventive and educational policies, as opposed to purely punitive legislation.

27 See the Government’s Response at the HKLRC web site, available at <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/news/newsArchiveXML.htm > 28 Harmful Digital Communications Bill, New Zealand 29 Brenner, Rehberg, M. (2009). Kiddie Crime? Law Review 8, 1-85 30 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

12

Moreover, cases of cyber-bullying at times involve hundreds and even thousands of anonymous users. The process of assisting the victim in identifying the offenders is conceivably labor intensive and cost ineffective, if not entirely impossible. It is also the European Commission’s position that the issue of cyber-bullying is best dealt with outside the criminal courts system. Indeed, it is questionable whether the situation in Hong Kong is of such a severity as to justify immediate criminal sanction. It is argued that new criminal offences shall be introduced unless there is an established need to criminalize a form of anti-social behavior that cannot be resolved in any other way under existing law. This paper therefore contends that a progressive approach that favors civil remedies would be a better option. 2. New civil law regime – liability for cyber-bully It is this paper’s proposal that legislation should create new civil liability by holding the offenders liable in tort to the victim. The victims should be able to claim damages for any physical and psychiatric harm resulting from the relevant cyberbullying behavior, and as well apply to the court for protection/prevention orders. Establishing civil liability not only circumvents the requirement of actual bodily harm in Wilkinson v Downtown, but also addresses the uncertainty of tort of harassment in Pidduck v Molloy. Having the option of avoiding the complex and costly defamation claim, victims could better protect their personal reputation and privacy. Indeed, this approach was also favored by recent Cyber-Safety Act in Nova Scotia, the first legislation of its kinds in Canada, providing victims and their families new civil options in suing the offenders. On top of the new civil law regime, this paper calls for additional protection against child victims. Disclosing the identity of the child victims in courts potentially place them at a higher risk of victimization.

13

This issue was litigated in the Supreme Court of Canada in A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc31. Outweighing the benefits of maintaining open court proceedings and free press, the court ruled that a minor shall be able to proceed with a claim without his identify becoming public. Taking into account how intimidating court proceedings could be for child victims, it is this paper’s recommendation that the court should implement policies that protect a child’s privacy, such as an imposition of publication bans on the victims’ identify. Apart from holding the cyber-bullies liable, this paper proposes an imposition of civil liability against ISPs, without having to resort to a defamation claim, figuratively a patent right option for wealthy corporates and individuals. The ISPs are usually more resourceful than individual offenders. Notwithstanding their passive role, they are in the best position to block, remove and filter materials. The existence of power asymmetries in the cyber world reveals the ISPs’ power of control over content and their easy access to significant information about their data users, including IP addresses, email addresses and other personal particulars.32 As Google pointed out in its submission to the New Zealand Law Commission Review, ‘the mere existence of harmful speech is not sufficient to justify additional regulation.’ 33 The ISPs constantly promotes a self-regulatory system and demands a guarantee of free speech. They also argue that the sophisticated reporting technologies and infrastructures are sufficient in allowing users to flag contents that breach the site’s terms and conditions. However, it is unconvincing that such systems can provide a total solution. Indeed, liability of ISPs has forged a new direction in the counterparts. While the US is deemed as taking a more liberal stance under Communications Decency Act 199634 in excluding ISP liability, the English courts follow the European standard under the Electronic

31 2012 SCC 46 32 David Farrar “Privacy and New Media” (Privacy forum, 3 May 2012) 33 Submission of Google New Zealand Ltd (14 March 2012) at 16 34 Communications Decency Act 1996

14

Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations35, holding ISPs liable if they have actual knowledge of unlawful information and have failed to act expeditiously. On a balance between ISPs liability and the urge for free speech, the European Union approaches are more preferable, for they provided a more effective remedy than the US laws. Along the same logic, this paper proposes a new civil liability that requires the ISPs to remove unlawful and harmful information upon actual or implied notice within a reasonable time. In any event, the duty on ISPs would not be too onerous, for it is an obligation, though unenforced, guaranteed in most terms of use contracts. The requirement of actual and implied notice also contributes to the reasonableness. E. Cyber Communication Tribunal In many cases of cyberbullying, courts are an unrealistic option for victims seeking swift and informal redress. An appropriate mechanism that provides relief outside the courtrooms is therefore a viable option. A tribunal which carries the power of making enforceable orders is not new in Hong Kong. The Lands Tribunal, the Small Claims Tribunal and the Obscene Articles Tribunal are vivid instances. They provide justice that is prompt, inexpensive, accessible and informal. One may argue that given that relief is usually to seek for a protection order, the proposed new civil law regime discussed in Part D(2) of this paper seems to argue for the same thing. However, the latter fundamentally concerns a court order that is subject to the rules of court. A tribunal serves as a less formal machinery than the courtrooms. This is particularly important for child victims who cannot afford costly litigation but are desperate of immediate solution. To avoid an opening of floodgate for complaints, some way of control must be in place to preliminarily filter complaints. Moreover, the

35 Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations

15

entitlement to complain shall be confined to natural persons. The Government and enterprises shall be exempted, for the primary purpose of the tribunal is to minimalize harm to individuals. 1. Constitutional rights - freedom of expression A central dilemma that lies in the function of a tribunal and precisely in any cyber-bullying legislation is the conflict with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental constitutional right under Basic Law36 and Bill of Rights Ordinance37 (BORO). BORO38 provides the constitutional requirements for restrictions, namely prescription by law requirement and the necessity requirement which involves proportionality test (Ng Kung Siu39). Protection of public health or morals and the rights of others is likely a legitimate aim for restricting rights. It is the other limb of the test – whether the restriction is no more than necessary for achieving the aim – that demands a more thorough discussion. 2014 has been a politically sensitive year, and surprisingly, the battlefield has moved onto the cyber world. Targets range from members of the opposing camps to government officials including the Chief Executive and the police. Indeed, to many citizens in Hong Kong, various forms of online ridicule and humiliation are important channels of showing their anger and discontent towards the government. If the tribunal goes on and precludes all these behaviors, the restriction is arguably more than necessary for protecting individuals from harm. Worse still, it would also have the threat of forging a censorship regime in Hong Kong. This issue of freedom of speech was also litigated in the United States in 2014, when the New York Court of Appeals stroke down the Albany law on cyber-bullying for violating the Free Speech Clause. The court ruled that the Albany County’s law was too broad and ‘envelops far more than acts of cyber-bullying against children by criminalizing a variety of constitutionally-protected modes of expression’. 40

36 Section 27 37 Section 19 38 Section 17 39 [1999] 1 HKLRD 783 40 <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-new-york-cyberbully-idUSKBN0F64N420140701>

16

Therefore, this paper proposes that the law to be applied by the tribunal should comprise a codified list of requirements derived from both the statutes and common law. A grant of protection orders must be proportionate to the harm suffered – serious consequences such as intimidation, harassment, defamation and invasion of privacy. The uniqueness of Hong Kong’s social and political climate should be put under close scrutiny in balancing the citizens’ freedom of speech. E. Indispensable roles of schools and parents Last but not least, this paper proposes that statutory obligations be placed on school and parents. As a matter of current practice, the government’s approach is primarily preventive. In 2011, a pilot project that targeted about 100 schools was initiated in the development of anti-bullying campaigns. Education Bureau has also issued circulars to all schools in Hong Kong and persuaded them to implement anti-bullying policies at schools. However, these measures are far from adequate. The role of schools is essential. Indeed, imposing liability on schools is a norm in US. For instance, the Massachusetts legislation in 2010 mandates school sanctions on school offenders. However, US approach is diminished by a strict division between on-campus and off-campus bullying. For instance, school sanction is only enforceable if the victims of cyber-bullying could establish that the acts have caused substantial disruption or interference to their learning at school. Therefore, this paper proposes that schools in Hong Kong shall have a statutory responsibility to implement anti-bullying policies at school, which includes staff training and disciplinary sanction against student offenders. In particular, taking the lesson from US, legislation in Hong Kong should extend the schools’ jurisdiction to off-campus bullying.

17

Regarding the role of parents, this paper recommends that parents shall be capable of being liable for damages caused by their children’s bullying acts. This serves to compel the parents to take preventive and educational measures. In any event, a solution needs to involve both education and law. Given the close intimacy with young offenders, schools and parents should be afforded more significant roles. G. Conclusion Cyber-bullying is fundamentally a global phenomenon. However, as this paper has demonstrated, its manifestation, prevalence and consequence vary significantly from one place to the other. In Hong Kong, the growing prevalence of the matter has warranted the necessity of legislative intervention. An underlying contention of this paper is that there is no single cut to this issue. This is the basis on which this paper argues for an integrated model of legislation, by not only holding the offenders liable, but also the ISPs, schools and parents. It is this paper’s central theme that children’s rights and freedom of speech shall be given due weight in designing the most proper legal framework. In most foreign countries, legislation on cyber-bullying was not triggered until calamitous incidents of suicide happened.41 It is my sincere hope that Hong Kong shall never let the history repeat itself.

41 In Nova Scotia, cyber-bullying legislation was announced nearly three weeks after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons

18

H. Bibliography Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012a). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed)). Hanley, J.A. (2010) Cyberbullying – A Global Concern Danielle Keats Citron, ‘Cyber Civil Rights’ (2009) 61 Boston University Law Review 62, 64, 89. Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work Scandinavian Journal of Psychology Shariff, Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, Routledge Winterdyk, John. Juvenile Justice: International Perspectives, Models, and Trends Andre Sourander et al, ‘Childhood Bullying Behavior and Later Psychiatric Hospital’ (2009) 66(9) BHAT et. al. (2010). Addressing Cyberbullying as a Media Literacy Issue. New Horizons in Education, Vol.58, No.3. Dr Janis Carroll-Lind School Safet, Office of the Children’s Commissioner, 2009 Submission of Google New Zealand Ltd (14 March 2012) at 16 Brenner, Rehberg, M. (2009). Kiddie Crime? First Amendment Law Review 8, 1-85 A written reply by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic <http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201212/19/P201212190360.htm>

19

Bai, Ji. Human flesh engine: An Internet lynching? Xinhua News. <http://news.xinhuanet.com.com/english/2008-07/04/content_8491087.htm> Government’s Response at the HKLRC web site, available at <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/news/newsArchiveXML.htm > <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-new-york-cyberbully-idUSKBN0F64N420140701> Submission of Google New Zealand Ltd (14 March 2012) at 16 Communications Decency Act 1996 Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations Harmful Digital Communications Bill, New Zealand United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Cyber-safety Act, SNS 2013, c 2, at s 3. Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 496) Crimes Ordinance (Cap200) Defamation Ordinance (21) R v Chan Kai Hing [1997] 3 HKC 575 Wilkison v Downtown [1897] 2 Q.B. 57 Pidduck v Molloy [1992] 2 FLR 202 CA Burris v Azadani [1995] 4 All ER 802 Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237

20

Yam Chi Ming Stephen v Sing Pao Newspaper Co Ltd [2006] 3 HKC 10 Parmiter v Coupland [1840] 6 M & W 105 Youssoupoff v Metro [1934] 50 TLR 581 Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201 Bunt v Tilley [2007] 1 WLR 1243 Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] 5 HKC 253 A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc 2012 SCC 46 Ng Kung Siu [1999] 1 HKLRD 783 #430751