Skip to main content

Harmful Telecommunications - Chief Minister's Department - Submission 5 - 29 April 2016

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

Harmful  Online Communications

 

Questions  for  consultation  (Please  give  reasons  for  your  response)

 

  1. Do  you  think  that  the  approach  proposed  in  this  consultation  document strikes  the  right  balance  between  ensuring  freedom  of  expression  and  the need  to  uphold  the  criminal  law?

The  consultation  document  does  refer  to  the  importance  of  freedom  of expression.  The  Jersey  Consumer  Council  welcomes  this,  and  it  is  noted  that  it  is very  difficult  to  find  the  balance  between  preserving  the  right  to  one's  freedom  of expression,  whilst  at  the  same  time  removing  speech  that  is  deemed  to  be  hateful. Great  caution  should  be  taken  to  ruling  something  as  hateful,  but  at  the  same time,  sufficient  sanctions  should  be  in  place  to  ward  off  internet  trolls  from posting  malicious  comments for  example.

  1. Do  you  think  that,  as  a  matter  of  general  principal,  people  should  be  held accountable  for  their  activities  conducted  online  in  the  same  way  that  they are  for  activities  conducted  offline?

As  a  principle  the  Council  accepts  that  comments  produced,  be  they  online  or offline  should  be  treated  equally,  and  as  such  individuals  should  be  held  to

account,  where  necessary.  The  problem  arises  where  it  is  not  possible,  or  it  is  at least  extremely  difficult  to  trace  online  comments  back  to  an  individual.  Any

energy  spent  tracing  the  origin  of  an  online  comment,  should  be  proportionate  to content  of  the  comment  itself.

  1. Do  you  think  it  is  appropriate  to  amend  the  existing  offence  in  Article  51(a) of  the  Telecommunications  (Jersey)  Law  2002  so  that  it  is  clearer  when  the sending  of  a  harmful  online  communication  should  be  treated  as  criminal?

The  Council  accepts  that  there  should  be  an  amendment  to  the  current  laws  in place  ensure  that  any  charge  brought  against  an  individual  is  the  correct  one,  and that  a  suitable  offence  is  drawn  up  by  way  of  statutory  definition.  The  prosecution of  an  individual  should  not  be  brought  under  a  law  which  does  not  adequately  fit the  offence.

In  order  to  future  proof  potentially  harmful  online  comments,  the  Council suggests  an  amendment  to  the  Electronic  Communciations (Jersey) Law 2000,

rather  than under  the  Telecommunications  (Jersey)  Law.

The  reasons  are  that  it  may  well  be  the  case  that  future  online  messages  are  not accessed  through  a  telecommunication  system',  as  such  a  more  flexible  approach

may  be  an  amendment  to  the  Electronic  Communications  Law.  As  the  Electronic Communications  Law  is  there  to  facilitate  electronic  communications,  the  Council

queries  the  function  of  this  law,  should  an  amendment  of  Article  51  of Telecommunications  (Jersey)  Law  be  enacted  to  counter  harmful  online messaging  through  social  media.

  1. Do  you  think  that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  create  a  new  offence  so  that is  clearer  when  the  sending  of  a  harmful  online  communication  should  be treated  as  criminal?

The  Council  doesn't  think  that  a  new  offence  is  required  in  order  to  tackle  harmful

online  communications.  As  stated  in  the  conclusion  of  the  consultation,  a  large proportion  of  internet  users  feel  confident  in  using  the  internet  and  engaging with  social  media.  We  therefore  only  require  a  light  touch  via  an mendment  to  an

existing  law,  to  ensure  that  the  vulnerable  are  protected  from  vexatious  assaults online,  rather  than  the  creation  of  a  separate  offence.

  1. Do  you  think  that  alternative  approaches  to  tackle  this  type  of  behaviour should  be  considered  as  well as/or  instead  of  changes  to  legislation?  If  so, please  give  details.

Advisory  guidelines  could  be  produced  by  the  States  of  Jersey  to  assist  with  those who  are  not  used  to  the  internet  or  social  media.  These  guidelines  could  highlight what  is  consideredto  be  appropriate  and  inappropriate  behaviour.  In  particular

schools  may  benefit  from  such  guidelines  when  children  begin  their  IT  education

at  school.

The  Council  firmly  believe  in  the  important  role  of  education  in  all  matters  to  help everyone  make  informed  choices; education  is  fundamental  to  this  topic  to  help

everyone  understand  the  impacts  of sending,  receiving  and  the  duration of  online

communications.  Education  must  also  timely  child  age-­related'  guidance  for

parents  on  such  issues  as  auto-­lock,  perils  of  downloading  apps  and  much  more

etc.

  1. Do  you  believe  that  a  specific  offence  should  be  considered  relating  to revenge  pornography'?

The  Council  believes  that  further  research  and  consultation  should  take  place prior  to  determining  whether  a  specific  offence  should  be  created.  We  should look  to  see  the  approaches  adopted  by  neighbouring  countries,  as  well  as  the number  of  cases  that  arise  locally before  determining  this  issue.