Report On Social Media July 2013 Website

TITHE AN OIREACHTAS
AN COMHCHOISTE UM IOMPAR AGUS CUMARSID
Tuarascil
Faoi aghaidh a thabhairt ar fhs na Men Sisialta

agus faoi dhul i ngleic le Cibearbhulaocht
_______________
HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND

COMMUNICATIONS
Report
Addressing the Growth of Social Media

and tackling Cyberbullying
31TC 007 July 2013

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications
Table of Contents
Vice-Chairmans Foreword ............................................................................................ 3
Membership of the Committee ...................................................................................... 5
1. Overview and Recommendations............................................................................. 7
2. Background Social Media.................................................................................... 11
3. Misuse of Social Media .......................................................................................... 15
3.1 Age restrictions................................................................................................ 15
3.2 Mental health implications for younger social media users .............................. 15
3.3 Cyberbullying an international perspective ................................................... 16
3.4 Cyberbullying in Ireland ................................................................................... 17
3.5 Cyberbullying through text messages .............................................................. 19
3.6 Defamation ...................................................................................................... 21
4. Dealing with the misuse of the Internet and Social Media

procedures currently in place .................................................................................. 23
4.1 Government initiatives ..................................................................................... 23
4.2 Industry profile and processes ......................................................................... 23
5. The legislative position in Ireland ........................................................................... 33
5.1 Difficulties in legislating in respect of social media ........................................... 33
5.2 Relevance of legislation currently in place ....................................................... 33
6. Initiatives at EU level ............................................................................................... 39
6.1 The Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol ............................ 39
6.2 The 2009 agreement with internet companies ................................................. 40
6.3 Safer Internet Programme (2009-2013) ........................................................... 40
6.4 European Commission Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (2012) ........ 42
7. Legislative position in other countries ...................................................................... 44
7.1 Laws in the United States of America .............................................................. 44
7.2 Laws in New Zealand ...................................................................................... 45
1
7.3 Laws in Australia ............................................................................................. 45
7.4 Laws in Canada............................................................................................... 46
7.5 Laws in Asia .................................................................................................... 46
7.6 Anonymity & real name verification laws.......................................................... 46
8. Possible actions and initiatives .............................................................................. 49
8.1 Educating children, teachers and parents ........................................................ 49
8.2 Schools programmes/actions .......................................................................... 51
8.3 More open communication between schools, hotlines and social

media companies .................................................................................................. 53
8.4 Public Awareness Campaigns ......................................................................... 54
8.5 Provide more resources to the Data Protection Commissioner and

the Computer Crime Investigation Unit .................................................................. 54
8.6 Accessibility of the court system ...................................................................... 54
8.7 Provide training and guidance to Garda and the DPP..................................... 56
8.8 Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime ..................... 56
8.9 Provide more support for peer-to-peer learning projects .................................. 56
9. European Commission Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (2012) ............. 57
10. Hyperlinks to the Transcripts of Committee Meetings ............................................ 62
11. List of those who made a submission .................................................................... 63
12. Terms of Reference of the Committee ................................................................... 64
2
Vice-Chairmans Foreword
Earlier this year the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications decided to
commence hearings on challenges facing individuals, families and communities from the rise
of social media, including the challenges posed by cyber-bullying and online harassment.
As social media is changing the way many of our citizens interact with one another, we
thought that it was important that the Committee should make itself aware of the various
facets of this topic, particularly in light of disquiet, which has been expressed in some
quarters, that there are no curbs on irresponsible use of these channels.
Over the course of four meetings the Committee sought to establish how the irresponsible
use of social media channels might be curbed. It also invited members of the public and
interested groups across the country to have their say and feed into the process through
written and online contributions. The purpose of the hearings was to explore how the rights
of ordinary citizens could be protected on social media outlets as there had been increasing
public concern about the nature of some social media commentary at that time.
The social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube engaged very constructively
with us in the consultation process as indeed did the Minister for Communications, Energy
and Natural Resources, Mr. Pat Rabbitte TD, the Office for Internet Safety, the National Anti-
Bullying Coalition and Digital Rights Ireland. The Committee was also struck by the very
strong level of interest manifested by the large number of informed submissions made by
individuals and groups.
The Committee undertook these consultations with open minds and with an overall objective
of seeking to protect individuals and safeguard the potential of social media from those who
seek to subvert it.
3
There is no doubt that social media has immense potential for public good and civic
engagement and the Committees primary concern was to ensure that it does so without
impacting adversely on people's individual rights.
Informed by these public hearings and by the many submissions received from the public,
we have prepared this report with practical recommendations to be considered by
Government.
I would like to express my appreciation to my fellow Members of the Joint Committee. The
commitment of the Members and most particularly those on the Working Group in producing
this Report is very much appreciated.
John OMahony T.D.

Vice - Chairman
19 July 2013
4
Membership of the Committee
Deputies:
Vacant [Chairman]
John OMahony (FG) [Vice-Chairman]
Michael Colreavy (SF)
Timmy Dooley (FF)
Dessie Ellis (SF)
Terence Flanagan (FG)
Tom Fleming (IND)
Noel Harrington (FG)
San Kenny (LAB)
Eamonn Maloney (LAB)
Mattie McGrath (IND)
Michael Moynihan (FF)
Patrick ODonovan (FG)
Ann Phelan (LAB)
Brian Walsh (FG)
Senators:
Terry Brennan (FG)

Sean D. Barrett (IND)
Eamonn Coghlan (FG)
Paschal Mooney (FF)
Ned OSullivan (FF)
John Whelan (LAB)
5
6
1. Overview and Recommendations
Currently procedures dealing with cyberbullying focus on providing guidelines to young

people, teachers and parents so that they use social media safely. The Committee believes
that while these guidelines exist, young people are not sufficiently aware of them.
Most social media companies allow users to block other users or to report abusive content.
However, the Committee believes that public awareness of these procedures is lacking.
Consequently, the potential for either ameliorating the risk of abuse occurring on platforms,
or dealing with abuse when it arises, is reduced.
The Committee acknowledges the work that companies such as Google, Facebook and
Twitter are doing to educate users of their services but would like to see this work
intensifying, with the involvement and co-operation of school staff as well as parents.
Legislation
The Committee is aware that the European Commission favours industry self-regulation and
that this is also the policy position in Ireland (where internet self-regulation is overseen by
the Office for Internet Safety (OIS)).
In the case of children and young people being bullied by their peers, it is the Committees
opinion that these matters are best dealt with outside the courts system unless they involve
cases which are persistent or unresponsive to other forms of intervention. Some cases may
be best dealt with within schools, as is increasingly done in the USA where cyberbullying
(even if it occurs outside school time) is seen as disruptive to the learning environment.
Where cases arise which need a stronger response, the Committee is satisfied that there is
already legislation in place to deal with cyberbullying though identification and follow-through
of cyberbullying remains a problem. However, the costs involved in pursuing a case through
the courts may be prohibitive and this is a matter which requires further examination.
Managing reports of social media misuse
A problem identified by the Committee is the lack of a central agency or body charged with
managing the reports relating to claims that social media users have been engaging in
cyberbullying or other inappropriate behaviour. This has been left to the social media
7
companies themselves. Mr. Paul C Dwyer of the National Anti-Bullying Coalition told the
Committee that one social network provider received some 100,000 requests per day but
had just 90 people to deal with such requests.
The Office for Internet Safety is an Executive Office of the Department of Justice and
Equality and has been established by the Government to take the lead responsibility for
internet safety in Ireland, particularly in relation to children. 1 However, the OIS does not have
a formal regulatory role; its primary function is to monitor the current self-regulatory model
agreed with Internet Service Providers.2 The OIS also coordinates the Safer Internet Centre
and the Safer Internet Ireland Project.
The Committee is concerned that the OIS is not sufficiently developed to deal with the
threats posed by the misuse of social media. At present the OIS has a low profile in many
quarters. It therefore needs to increase its profile and establish a greater presence on the
internet.
EU-wide response
Given the global nature of social media it is impossible for any one country to completely
safeguard its citizens. The Committee believes that the scale of cyberbullying on social
media platforms requires a collective EU-wide response. The Committee therefore
welcomes the European Commission Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (2012).
Disclosure of complaints
The Committee believes that data regarding cyberbullying reports made to social media
companies should be collected and reported to the Data Commissioner.
Cyberbullying and suicide - separate issues
While the Committee is aware of cases where victims of cyberbullying have taken their own
lives, it is worth noting North American research which found that cyber-bullying is rarely the
sole or main cause of death by suicide.3
1
http://www.internetsafety.ie/
2
http://www.internetsafety.ie/website/ois/oisweb.nsf/page/regulation-whoisresponsible-en
3
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/10/21/Cyberbullying-rarely-sole-link-to-suicide/UPI-83371350795203/
8
Nevertheless cyberbullying is a serious issue which can have lasting effects for those
affected, resulting in: distress, loneliness, low self-esteem, anxiety, academic difficulties,
poor concentration, high absenteeism and poor physical health.4
The paper contains 8 recommendations which are based on relevant secondary research as
well as the submissions received by the Committee and the Committees hearings. These
recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation 1
Despite age restrictions put in place by social media companies, many children are opening
accounts on social media platforms. The Committee recommends that, where this has been
identified, the relevant company must be swift in closing the account and taking down all
information in relation to it. Also, parents should be made more aware of their responsibilities
in this regard.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that Child Protection Guidelines incorporate guidance for all
professionals working with children, to aid them if they encounter issues relating to
cyberbullying and inappropriate use of social media.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends supporting and reiterating the recommendation contained in
the Action Plan on Bullying that the definition of bullying in the new national procedures for
schools should include a specific reference to cyberbullying. Also, guidelines specific to
cyberbullying should be put in place, so that school principals, who are dealing with
instances of cyberbullying, have a clear protocol to follow.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that employers be made aware of the importance of
introducing a social media policy, i.e. outlining what constitutes cyberbullying and what
actions will be taken if there is a breach of such a policy. Employers should be aware that
cyberbullying falls within the term harassment and Section 10 of the Non-fatal Offences
Against the Person Act 1997 may apply in such cases.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that a review of international best practice in relation to the
registration of prepaid SIM cards be carried out by the Government, with a view to exploring
the feasibility of preventing use of these cards for malicious and/or illegal purposes.
4
Submission to the Committee from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (2013). Paper entitled
CyberPsychology Research at the Institute of Leadership RCSI
9
Recommendation 6
It is the Committees view that the Office for Internet Safety does not adequately deal with
cyberbullying or with the traceability of tweets and other social media. The Committee
recommends that a single body be given responsibility for co-ordinating the regulation of
social media content. Funding and organisational models for this agency should be agreed
with the industry. It is noted that other examples of industry-led partnerships between
stakeholders and government have been established in other sectors in recent years.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends continuous professional development for public officials
working in criminal justice so that they are given clear guidance on how to deal with cases of
bullying and cyberbullying.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that more emphasis be placed on educating parents, teachers
and children on how to safely use social media. For children, this might incorporate peer-to-
peer learning whereby children mentor their peers. It is the Committees view that advice and
technical support should come from the industry. The SPHE curriculum may also be revised
to incorporate this.
10
2. Background Social Media
Social media is a global phenomenon which is becoming increasingly mobile. A recent NM

Incite/Nielsen 2012 report5 surveyed consumers to discover how they use social networks.
The report finds that the proliferation of smart phones and tablets has facilitated the growth
of social media use. The report also shows that mobile phones are the second most
commonly used means of connecting to social media, after PCs, with tablets in third place.
As access to social media becomes more mobile, its use expands. Consumers time spent
with social media on mobile applications (known as apps) 6 and the mobile web increased
63% in 2012, compared to the same period in 2011.
Social media use globally
Figure 1 shows which companies are the most popular, in terms of active users, on a global
scale. The chart is sourced from the Trendstreams Global Web Index for the final quarter of
2012.7 The study counts the number of active users on a monthly basis, rather than the total
number of users. The chart shows that Facebook is the worlds most popular social network
with 693 million active users (Facebook Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mark Zuckerberg has
previously claimed that the social network has 1 billion active users a month).
Figure 1: Most popular social media sites, December 2012
5
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2012/state-of-the-media-the-social-media-report-2012.html
6
An app is a piece of software. It can run on the Internet, on your computer, or on your phone or other electronic
device.
7
http://www.globalwebindex.net/social-platforms-gwi-8-update-decline-of-local-social-media-platforms/
11
Social media use among Irish adults

Figure 2 shows the most popular social media platforms at the time of survey (February
2013).8 The chart shows that Facebook is the most popular platform among Irish adults, with
52% of Irish adults surveyed having a Facebook account. This was followed by Twitter
(23%) and LinkedIn (20%).
Figure 2: Percentage of Irish adults (15+) with social media accounts in 20139
Source: IPSOS MRBI Quarterly Social Networking Survey, February 2013, based on nationally representative
sample of 1,000 adults aged 15+.
In addition, a recent Eurobarometer Cybercrime Poll (2012) found that the Irish public had a
higher than average social networking usage by comparison with their European
counterparts.10
8 th
Irish Internet Association. (2012). Issue 24, Spring 2012. Accessed on 18 April 2012 at
http://www.iia.ie/resources/resource/1/state-of-the-net/
9
http://www.ipsosmrbi.com/social-networking-quarterly-survey-februar-2013.html
10
http://www.internetsafety.ie/website/ois/oisweb.nsf/page/73148FCEBF3669E780257B5C0052089D/$File/rep20
13.pdf
12
Social media use among Irish teenagers

A recently published Irish study by Machold et al. (2012)11 examined internet usage by
young people aged 11-16 years. Tables 1 and 2 are taken from this study. Table 1 shows
the basic use of the internet by Irish teenagers. The table shows that facebook (95%) is the
most commonly used platform for Irish teenagers, followed by Bebo (65%) and then Twitter
(33%). The table also shows that most teenagers (61%) are never supervised by their
parents when on social media, while 37% are sometimes supervised and 2% are always
supervised.
Table 1: Basic internet usage among Irish teenagers

Usage of SNS
Top subscribed to Mode of internet Parental supervision Hours
SNSs access most accessed daily
frequently used
SNS % Mode % Supervision % Hours %
Facebook 95% Shared 44% Always 2% <2h 62%
computer
Bebo 65% Personal 40% Sometimes 37% 2-7h 37%
computer
Twitter 33% Mobile 6% Never 61% >7h 1%
phone
Source: Machold et al. (2012)
Bhat et al. (2010) cite Livingstone and Brake (2010) who noted that social networking sites
provide opportunities and risks for young people. These opportunities include self-
presentation, learning, widening their circle of relationships, and managing privacy and
intimacy.12
For most, the use of social media is a positive experience but use of the medium can also be
unpleasant.
11
Machold, C., Judge, G., Mavrinac, A., Elliott, J., Murphy, AM., and Roche, E. (2012) Social Networking
Patterns/Hazards Among Irish Teenagers Irish Medical Journal Volume 105(9) (October 2012)
12
BHAT et. al. (2010). Addressing Cyberbullying as a Media Literacy Issue. New Horizons in Education, Vol.58,
No.3. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ966658.pdf
13
Table 2 contains some troubling data regarding childrens reports on the incidence of
bullying or of being made to feel uncomfortable by an adult. The table shows that 16% of
males have bullied others, while 10% of males report having been bullied through social
media. For females these figures are 5% and 12% respectively. Roughly a quarter have
been made to feel uncomfortable.
Table 2: hazards to teenagers arising from their use of Social Networking Sites (SNSs)
Hazards Males Females
Have been bullied 10% 12%
Admitted to 16% 5%
bullying/excluding others
Have been made to feel 23% 29%
uncomfortable on SNSs
Made to feel uncomfortable 71% 75%
by someone own
age/younger
Made to feel uncomfortable 33% 41%
by an adult
Source: Machold et al. (2012)
14
3. Misuse of Social Media
3.1 Age restrictions
Research by Ofcom (an independent regulator and competition authority for the United
Kingdoms communications industries) found that despite the age restrictions on many social
media websites, 27% of 8-11 year olds, who are aware of social networking sites, say that
they have a profile on a site. Children are, therefore, circumventing these restrictions. 13
Recommendation 1
Despite age restrictions put in place by social media companies, many children are opening
accounts on social media platforms. The Committee recommends that, where this has been
identified, the relevant company must be swift in closing the account and taking down all
information in relation to it. Also, parents should be made more aware of their responsibilities
in this regard.
3.2 Mental health implications for younger social media users
St. Patricks Hospital, in their submission to the Committee, write that social media is having
a negative effect on Irish child and adolescent mental health services in terms of
cyberbullying, exposure to unsuitable violent and sexual material, as well as excessive use
of social media websites instead of actual social interaction. St. Patricks argue that there
needs to be: clearer Child Protection Guidelines for all health professionals who
encounter reports of such incidents in their practice.
In addition there are several websites which promote eating disorders. This was brought to
the Committees attention in a submission by Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne, Dingle.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that Child Protection Guidelines incorporate guidance for all
professionals working with children, to aid them if they encounter issues relating to
cyberbullying and inappropriate use of social media.
13
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media
literacy/archive/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/summary/
15
3.3 Cyberbullying an international perspective
The Office for Internet Safety recently issued a Guidebook on Cyber-Bullying which defines
cyber-bullying as:
bullying which is carried out using the internet, mobile phone or other technological
devices.
Professor Mona O Moore describes cyber bullying as an extension of traditional bullying

with technology providing the perpetrator with another way to abuse their target. 14
Spunout.ie make a similar point and stress that cyberbullying is simply another form of
bullying and not something driven solely by the internet.
However, research by Tokunaga (2009)15 draws some distinctions between traditional

bullying and cyber bullying. The first is that students who would not otherwise engage in
bullying do so online; secondly there is a lack of supervision in electronic media; and thirdly,
the target or victim is far more accessible and can experience bullying at any time of the day.
Tokungas (2009) research also finds that students who are victims of cyber bullying are
usually victims of traditional, off-line bullying as well.
Common cyberbullying tactics include:16
Pretending to be someone else when online;

Spreading rumours and lies about the victim;
Posting pictures of victims without their consent; and
Tricking people into revealing personal information.
Research published in January 2013 by the Cyberbullying Research Centre in the USA 17
found that students whose friends had perpetrated cyberbullying were more likely to engage
in cyberbullying themselves. Also, students in schools who reported that cyberbullying was
14
O' Moore, M. (2012) Cyber-Bullying: the situation in Ireland Pastoral Care in Education: an international
journal of personal, social and emotional development. London: Routledge.
15
Tokunga, Robert S. (2009). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on
cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol 26 (2010), 277-287
16
Education Partnerships Inc. (2010). Cyberbullying.
17
http://cyberbullying.us/Social_Influences_on_Cyberbullying.pdf
16
likely to result in a sanction either from parents or the school were less likely to cyberbully
others.18
Research cited by Burnham et. al. (2011) also indicates that young people who experience
cyberbullying are reluctant to talk to anyone about it. When they do they are more likely to
talk to a friend and least likely to talk to a teacher.19
3.4 Cyberbullying in Ireland

The Childrens Ombudsman has described cyber bullying as being one of the most prevalent
forms of bullying experienced by children in Irish schools.20 Indeed, a recent study, reported
in the Irish Times, found that the incidence of cyberbullying among Irish teenagers was the
highest in the EU.21
Some statistics on the incidence of cyberbullying among young people in Ireland are:
17% of 12-18 year old Irish students report being victims of cyberbullying at least
once;22
13.9% of 1216 year olds reported having been cyberbullied in the last couple of
months;23
Of 9-16 year olds who have been bullied (23%), 4% have been bullied online.24
Children bullied on the internet are more likely to have been bullied on a social
networking site or by instant messaging than by email, gaming sites or chatrooms; 25
Levels of cyber bullying are highest among 15-16 year olds.26
In January 2013 the Department of Education and Skills Anti-Bullying Working Group
published an Action Plan on Bullying.27 The Plan recommends that the definition of bullying
in new national procedures for schools should include a specific reference to cyberbullying.
18
Ibid.
19
Burnham, J. J., Wright, V. H., & Houser, R. A. (2011). Cyberbullying: Emergent concerns for adolescents and
challenges for school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 9(15).
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ
933181&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ933181
20
http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/OCO-Bullying-Report-2012.pdf
21
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-cyberbullying-highest-in-eu-1.1254704
22
Cotter, P. &McGilloway, S. (2011). Living in an electronic age: Cyberbullying among Irish adolescents. Irish
Journal of Education, 39, 44-56.
23
O' Moore, M. (2012) Cyber-Bullying: the situation in Ireland Pastoral Care in Education: an international
journal of personal, social and emotional development. London: Routledge.
24
EU Kids Online study. (2011). Risks and safety for children on the internet: the Ireland report.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46444/1/IrelandReport.pdf
25
Ibid.
26
Action Plan on Bullying. (2013). http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Action-Plan-On-
Bullying-2013.pdf
27
http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Action-Plan-On-Bullying-2013.pdf
17
The Committee is aware of the Departments template for developing an anti-bullying policy,
which is based on the Guidelines on Countering Bullying Behaviour in Schools 28, 1993.
However, the Committee feels that guidelines issued specifically at cyberbullying may be
merited.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends supporting and reiterating the recommendation contained in
the Action Plan on Bullying that the definition of bullying in the new national procedures for
schools should include a specific reference to cyberbullying. Also, guidelines specific to
cyberbullying should be put in place, so that school principals, who are dealing with
instances of cyberbullying, have a clear protocol to follow.
A recent Irish Times article highlighted the issue of cyberbullying in the workplace and the
potential liability of employers when this occurs.29 The author, an associate with McDowell
Purcell Solicitors, writes:
If employers fail to evolve with developments in technology and implement social

media policies outlining what is expected of employees, they could be faced with
claims brought by both victims and perpetrators of workplace cyberbullying.
The article goes on to advise that employers have a social media policy which includes
cyberbullying and makes it clear what types of behaviour are prohibited and what the
consequences of breaching the policy will be. It was noted by the Minister for Justice and
Equality, Mr. Alan Shatter, T.D., in a Topical Issue Debate in the Dil on 7 th November 2012,
that cyberbullying, as a form of harassment, should be covered by Section 10 of the Non-
fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997.
28
http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Post-Primary-School-Policies/bullying_guidelines.pdf
29
Irish Times.(2013).Firms must show they have strategy against cyberbullies. Accessed on 24 June
2013 at http://www.irishtimes.com/news/technology/firms-must-show-they-have-strategy-against-
cyberbullies-1.1438232
18
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that employers be made aware of the importance of
introducing a social media policy, i.e. outlining what constitutes cyberbullying and what
actions will be taken if there is a breach of such a policy. Employers should be aware that
cyberbullying falls within the term harassment and Section 10 of the Non-fatal Offences
Against the Person Act 1997 may apply in such cases.
3.5 Cyberbullying through text messages
Cyberbullying also includes bullying through phone calls or text messages. An example
involved a case where a man pleaded guilty to harassing a teenage boy via text messages
between November 2011 and August 2012. During the period of harassment, the offender
used five prepaid SIM cards (which do not have to be registered).30 During the court
proceedings it was suggested that the ease of purchasing such Ready to Go SIM cards
was an issue, as it made tracing calls very difficult. The Judge in the case agreed that this
was an issue worth highlighting.31
Turning to where, internationally, this issue has been actioned it may be noted that a number
of countries in Africa have taken the step of introducing mandatory pre-paid SIM cards.
However, a report by the DIW Berlin (German Institute of Economic Research, 2012), which
analysed data from 32 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa from 2000 - 2010 found that
mandatory registration of prepaid SIM cards depressed growth in mobile SIM cards and
potentially increases the cost of mobile phone telephony. In terms of its impact on crime
reduction, the author wrote:
there is currently little empirical evidence that mandatory registration leads to a

reduction of crime. There are ways of circumventing registration either by presenting
fraudulent IDs, conducting identity theft, by stealing or swapping of phones. This casts
doubts on the effectiveness of the measures with respect to their very rationale.
Regulators should more thoroughly analyse the costs and benefits of mandatory
registration, because these could affect market dynamics in unintended ways.32
Six European countries have also introduced a requirement in their national laws for the
mandatory registration of pre-paid SIM cards. A written parliamentary question in the
30
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-guilty-of-malicious-and-evil-bullying-of-boy-through-text-
messages-28947459.html
31
http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17206:westport-man-given-
suspended-sentence-for-harassing-teenage-boy&catid=23:news&Itemid=46
32
http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.394079.de/dp1192.pdf
19
European Parliament on 26 th April 2012 asked if the European Commission believed it

should adopt legislation to combat telephone fraudsters throughout the European Union.
The question received the following reply:
The Commission has invited Member States to provide evidence of the effectiveness
of mandatory registration of pre-paid SIM cards, where such a measure is in place,
and of the potential security benefit were the EU to adopt a similar approach. To date,
no evidence has been forthcoming to justify action at EU level. Therefore, and as
stated in the evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (COM(2011)225 final),
the Commission is not convinced of the need for action in this area at an EU level at
this stage.
A parliamentary question33 addressed to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, T.D. on 3 rd November 2009 received the following reply in
relation to the registration of SIM cards:
The registration of prepaid mobile phones would present a number of challenges, not
least the costs of such a system given the volume of prepaid SIM cards in use and the
wide range of retail outlets where they are available. It could raise issues of
telecommunications regulation policy, which are of course a matter for the Minister for
Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It could also raise significant
privacy and data protection issues. EU Justice Ministers have asked the European
Commission, in the context of reporting under the 2006 Directive on Data Retention, to
consider whether there are technical solutions that might help improve identification of
the users of, for example, mobile 'phones with prepaid SIM cards. The matter is, of
course, kept under constant review.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that a review of international best practice in relation to the
registration of prepaid SIM cards be carried out by the Government, with a view to exploring
the feasibility of preventing use of these cards for malicious and/or illegal purposes.
33
PQ number 689
20
3.6 Defamation
Any person who creates defamatory material which is then published on the internet leaves
themselves open to prosecution in respect of the offence of defamation. 34
Digital Rights Ireland (DRI), a body which describes itself as devoted to defending Civil,
Human and Legal rights in a digital age,35 state that, in principal, defamation online is no
different to defamation offline and to prove defamation has occurred it has always been
necessary to show that publication occurred. This, DRI claims, is not as straightforward in
the case of online publishing, as publishing to the internet does not necessarily mean that it
was read by a large number of people. Defamation may also occur in cases where an
offensive remark is retweeted.36 As observed by DRI, this may be unintentional on the part of
the person who is retweeting the original remark.
34
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0006.html#sec6
35
http://www.digitalrights.ie/about/
36
A very popular instant messaging system that allows a person to send brief text messages up to 140
characters in length to a list of followers. Launched in 2006, Twitter was designed as a social network to keep
friends and colleagues informed throughout the day. However, it became widely used for commercial and political
purposes to keep customers, voters and fans up-to-date as well as to encourage feedback. Twitter messages
(tweets) can be made public and sent to anyone requesting the feed, or they can be sent only to approved
followers. Messages can be sent and received via text messaging (SMS), the Twitter Web site or a third-party
Twitter application. Twitter became a viral conduit when users initiated retweeting, which forwards tweets they
get to their followers.
21
22
4. Dealing with the misuse of the Internet and Social Media

procedures currently in place
4.1 Government initiatives

Safer Internet Ireland Project
The Safer Internet Ireland project is a consortium of industry, education, child welfare and
government partners which is coordinated by the OIS. 37 The key objectives of the project are
to:38
Create high profile, tightly coordinated, national safer internet actions.
Develop materials and programmes of awareness to ensure that children, teachers
and parents understand the benefits and risks of the Internet.
Make available a professionally run counselling service where children affected by
issues encountered on the Internet may turn for advice and guidance.
Operate an Internet hotline service that is trusted by the public to allow anonymous
confidential reporting of suspected illegal content or activities encountered on the
Internet.
The website www.makeitsecure.org is sponsored by the Department of Communications,

Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR), the Department of Finance of the devolved
Government of Northern Ireland and a number of key software companies including
Microsoft, British Telecom, Eircom and Vodafone.39 The website states:
It is the intention of the makeITsecure initiative to provide a focal point and guide to
users on the importance of the safe use of the internet.40
4.2 Industry profile and processes

Social media companies have different processes to deal with misuse of the medium. In this
section the procedures put in place by Ask.fm, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are examined.
All of these companies met with the Committee to discuss their procedures, with the
exception of Ask.fm.
37
http://www.internetsafety.ie/website/ois/oisweb.nsf/page/siiproject-en
38
Ibid.
39
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=1713&Lang=1
40
http://www.makeitsecure.org/en/index.html
23
The Industry self-regulatory process, with the support of the European Commission, was set
up in December 2011, to develop simple tools for users to report harmful content and
contact. There were five main actions:41
Action 1: Simple and robust reporting tools for users;
Action 2: Age-appropriate privacy settings;
Action 3: Wider use of content classification;
Action 4: Wider availability and use of parental controls;
Action 5: Effective takedown of child sexual abuse.
Ask.fm
Ask.fm is an anonymous question and answer platform website used regularly by young
people in Ireland and around the world.42 On visiting the site, Ask.fm encourages people to
sign-up to begin receiving questions and posting answers. Users can then add more
personal information such as date of birth, gender, location and a bio, as well as uploading
their picture. Ask.fm encourages people to share their profile through various different social
networking websites like Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. When the link is shared, other
people can find a profile to begin posting anonymous comments.
On signing up, users are given the option of searching for people they already know by
entering names, usernames or emails. Users can choose to follow other users. However,
unlike Twitter, a user can never find out who is following them and can only know the overall
number of followers he/she has.43
There are daily questions for users to answer too, such as "what sport do you do?", "which
song reminds you of your childhood?" and "which websites do you visit most frequently?"
A user can ask any other user a question (anonymously or openly) even if they do not follow
them. If the question is answered, the answer may be shared on Facebook or Twitter,
depending on how they have signed in. Alternatively, users can decline to answer them,
whereby the question will not be made public.
41
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/self_reg/index_en.htm
42
http://www.webwise.ie/AskfmGuide.shtm
43
Ibid.
24
Integration with Facebook

Ask.fm is highly integrated with Facebook and users have the option of cross-posting the
questions and their answers on their Facebook timelines. Depending on Facebook privacy
settings, if questions and answers are cross-posted, they appear to everyone on Facebook.
In addition there is an Ask.fm app on Facebook. The app means that users can operate their
Ask.fm profiles within Facebook.44
Integration with Twitter

Ask.fm is integrated with Twitter, to a lesser extent than Facebook. While there is no
Twitter/Ask.fm app, users can integrate with their Twitter accounts by opting for the option of
signing in using their Twitter credentials. By doing this, users have the option of publicly
tweeting the answers to questions they receive. Once done, the question and the answer
appear on Twitter and can be viewed by anyone who does a search for "ask.fm" on Twitter
or by someone using a live Twitter application which shows up-to-date tweets sorted by
search terms, such as Tweetdeck.
Ask.fm procedures in response to cyberbullying
Blocking
If a user is unhappy with the content of some questions, they can block the user who posed
the question. Once "block" is clicked, the user will no longer get questions or likes from that
person. However, the person who is blocked can still access their profile to view all other
interactions.
Reporting
Ask.fm does not appear to have any formal reporting mechanism. If using the app through
Facebook, there is an option to report the application by clicking on "report/contact this
app."45
44
45
25
Controversy
Ask.fm has been the subject of a number of recent controversies surrounding the deaths of
teenagers in Ireland and Britain, who were the subject of cyber bullying on the website.
There have been calls from some quarters to close the website down for this reason.
In response to such calls, Ombudsman for Children Ms. Emily Logan said:
I dont think blocking one website is going to stop the issue. If anything it would
possibly generate even more websites if it creates the amount of attention that its
getting, and rightfully so in terms of the association with cyberbullying.46
Founder of Ask.fm Mark Terebin, when questioned about suicides which some have linked
to the website, has said:
Of course there is a problem with cyber bullying in social media. But as far as we can
see we only have this problem in Ireland and in the United Kingdom most of all, trust
me. There are no complaints regarding cyber bullying from parents, children or other
sources in other countries. It seems that children are crueler in these countries (Ireland
and the United Kingdom).47
Facebook
Facebook has the most users of any social media forum in the world. Facebook allows users
to set up a personal profile or a page, advertising an event. According to statistics provided
by Mr. Simon Milner, policy director for UK and Ireland, at a Committee meeting on 7 th March
2013, Facebook currently has 1 billion active accounts. Profiles allow for the sharing of
video, status updates as well as the ability to like the post of another.
Procedures in place to prevent cyberbullying

Ms. Patricia Cartes outlined Facebooks safety policies at a Committee meeting on 7 th March
2013. Ms. Cartes described Facebooks four-tier approach as follows:
1. Policies Facebook operates a real name policy so that users must register their
real name. Facebook has a number of mechanisms to detect fake accounts.
2. Processes there is a report button placed throughout the site and also a help
centre, where members of the public can contact Facebook. Facebook also has
separate settings for under 18s.
46
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/blocking-ask-fm-will-not-stop-bullying-1.546881
47
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/32693/
26
3. People Facebook has established a social reporting mechanism, whereby a

person can contact someone in the community to discuss a post which may be
abusive. Facebook also has a safety centre, which contains information on how to
deal with abuse. When people make reports to Facebook about abuse, Facebook
lets them know the status of their reports through their support dashboard.
Facebook strives for a turnaround time of 24 - 48 hours but turnaround time varies
depending on the type of abuse.
4. Partnerships Facebook have a number of local partnerships in Ireland. They work

with Webwise and Internet Service Providers of Ireland (ISPAI). Facebook also works
with the safer internet centres in Europe. In addition Facebook has a partnership with
the Samaritans, which enables Facebook to provide specialist support to people who
are feeling suicidal.
Blocking
Facebook allows users to block a person who is harassing them or they dont wish to interact
with. This stops interaction both from the person who has been blocked and the person
taking the action.
Ms. Patricia Cartes told the Committee at a meeting of 7 th March that Facebook seeks to
bring Facebook users who are engaging in bullying or other malicious behaviour into
compliance through a system of educational checkpoints. If the violation is very severe,
Facebook will seek to remove the users account. When asked how many accounts
Facebook has removed, Ms Cartes said:
The number of accounts we remove might not be as informative as one would want
them to be. It is much more interesting to see how many users we bring back into
compliance over time.
Facebook are working with the UK child protection agency CEOP (Child Exploitation and
Online Protection) to create ClickCEOP, which is a link on users homepages, which enables
them to report inappropriate activity. The link or panic button as it has been called is aimed
at 13-18 year-olds in the UK.48
48
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/16930-facebook-introduces/
27
Controversy
A number of recent suicides in Ireland and elsewhere has focused the spotlight on Facebook
following reports that these suicides were preceded by bullying on the website. On 6 th May
2013 the Irish Independent reported that The National Association of Principals and Deputy
Principals (NAPD) wrote a letter to Facebook requesting a meeting to discuss issues relating
to cyberbullying and the possible establishment of school liaison teams as well as the
prompt takedown of abusive posts.49 The Irish Independent report that NAPD director Clive
Byrne said the letter from Facebook was "generic" and ignored the request for a meeting.
On 23rd May 2013 the Irish Times reported that a coalition of more than 60 groups are
protesting against Facebook pages which promote violence against women. As a result of
such pages, some companies such as Nissan have pulled their advertising. 50 The Irish
Times report that:
Facebook has said that some vulgar and offensive content will remain on the site on
the basis that it is free speech, not hate speech.
In a move to counter the registration of children under 13 (Facebooks own cut-off age) to
Facebook, a school in Queensland, Australia has warned that students under the age of 13
will be expelled if they do not close their Facebook accounts. 51 It is reported that the regional
Department of Health supports the move.
Twitter
Twitter describes itself as a:
real-time information network that connects you to the latest stories, ideas, opinions
and news about what you find interesting. 52
Twitter users can follow other users and be followed in turn. Users share information by
means of Tweets, which are 140 characters long. Not all users tweet, some prefer to read
the tweets of others.
49
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/facebook-ignores-call-by-principals-for-talks-on-cyberbullies-
29244121.html
50
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/facebook-defends-position-on-hate-speech-
1.1404239
51
http://www.thejournal.ie/school-warns-students-quit-facebook-or-be-expelled-453784-May2012/
52
https://twitter.com/about
28
Ms Sinad McSweeney, Director Public Policy Europe, met with the Committee on 7 th March
2013 to discuss Twitters safety polices. Ms. McSweeney described the high volume of traffic
Twitter experiences, with 1 billion tweets every two and a half days. More than 60% of
Twitter is conducted on mobile phones.
Procedures in place to prevent cyberbullying

In order to hold a Twitter account, one must be over 13 years old. Twitter has a help centre
which contains a range of resources, tool and facilities for our users to deal with any issue
that might arise for them on the platform. For those experiencing cyberbullying there is
information on how to report abuse or policy violations. Ms. McSweeney explained that
content which is in breach of Twitters rules can lead to permanent suspension of their
account. Such breaches include direct threats of violence, abusive behaviour, posting private
information, and impersonation.
McSweeney discusses Twitters two-pronged approach to dealing with abusive behavior on

their platform. This approach consists of:
1. Education and awareness raising.
2. Procedures for reporting content.
Twitter works with and receives feedback from other organisations as well as parents and
teachers to modify its policies and procedures in relation to malicious content or abuse of the
medium. When asked about corporate responsibility, Ms. McSweeney mentioned its
programme, Tweets for Good as well as its participation in Safer Internet Day, where safer
internet messaging was facilitated on the platform.
Where content posted is criminal, Twitter can provide law enforcement agencies with
information on that Twitter account. Twitter publish the details of requests received from law
enforcement agencies and Government annually.
Blocking
Twitter can block content in countries where such content is illegal in that country. Twitter
gave the Committee the example of Nazi speech in Germany.
29
Google/YouTube
Google operate the worlds most widely used search engine as well as the social media
website Google +. In addition Google own YouTube, the worlds biggest video-sharing
platform. Ms. Sue Duke, head of public policy and Ms. Sabine Frank, media literacy policy
counsel at Google, met with the Committee at their meeting of 20th March 2013. This section
will summarise details of Googles safety procedures as outlined to the Committee.
Google describe the three pillars of their approach to user safety as follows:
Education responsible use of the internet, digital citizenship, digital literacy.

Empowerment community guidelines, setting out the rules for being on YouTube,
users given full control over the videos they post and the comments made on them. A
user can set their video to private if they want to limit its exposure.
Protection invested in technologies to protect users, dedicated website
google.ie/goodtoknow is designed to educate people about protecting themselves
online. In addition Google has formed partnerships with other organisations which
work directly with companies to improve safety for users. Google recently supported
European Schoolnets The Web We Want booklet.
Google also have trusted flaggers in organisations who have a track record of reporting
content which is abusive and breaks the rules.
Projects and campaigns

The digital citizenship curriculum is aimed at second-level students and educates them
about YouTubes policies, how to keep safe online and how to report abusive content.
It Gets Better is targeted at young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teenagers. The
movement highlights issues of bullying facing young LGBT teenagers.
361 Degree Tolerance is a YouTube channel created with several partners in Germany.
Google asked students and schools to provide video material on how they define reputation
and fight anti-respectful behaviour.
Blocking
YouTube allows users to block another user. Once this user is blocked they will be unable to
comment on a video or contact one privately in any way.
30
Controversy
On 16th May 2013 the High Court heard the case of a man who was wrongly identified in a
video posted on YouTube as having evaded a taxi fare. The video of the incident went
viral53 and the man was subjected to numerous online insults which the judge described as:
a miscellany of the most vile, crude, obscene and generally obnoxious comments. 54 In
spite of his innocence he was unable to have the content removed from all of the websites
involved and found that the self-delete facility was limited in scope. He sought a mandatory
injunction requiring the internet companies to permanently remove the video. The judge
acknowledged that he had been defamed and ordered that experts for the internet
companies meet with experts for the plaintiff with a view to removing all relevant material
worldwide and permanently.
Services provided by other bodies/agencies
O2
Block It is a free service provided by O2 which allows their customers to block texts, MMS
or videos from specific mobile phone numbers.55 The service was developed along with
Anam Mobile (an Irish messaging services firm) but is available to O2 customers only. 56
Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) The Family Online Safety Institute is an international,
non-profit organization whose aim is to make the online world safer for children and their
families. FOSI run a programme called A Platform for Good which is designed to help
parents, teachers and teens to behave responsibly online.57 A screenshot of their websites
resource centre is included over:
53
To go viral refers to postings on the internet which become very popular, very quickly.
54
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/court-orders-removal-of-dublin-taxi-youtube-clip-1.1396069
55
http://www.o2online.ie/o2/uploads/pdfs/terms/promos/O2-Block-It-Service.pdf
56
http://www.webwise.ie/BlockItCombatingMobilePhoneBullying.shtm
57
http://www.aplatformforgood.org/pages/about-us
31
Recommendation 6
It is the Committees view that the Office for Internet Safety does not adequately deal with
cyberbullying or with the traceability of tweets and other social media. The Committee
recommends that a single body be given responsibility for co-ordinating the regulation of
social media content. Funding and organisational models for this agency should be agreed
with the industry. It is noted that other examples of industry-led partnerships between
stakeholders and government have been established in other sectors in recent years.
32
5. The legislative position in Ireland
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Ireland operate under a self-regulatory format in relation
to harmful or illegal content on the Internet. This is based on an Industry Code of Practice
and Ethics which is overseen by the Government.58 However, existing legislation may be
used where offences were committed through social media.
This section looks at existing legislation which may encompass some online offences and
also the difficulties inherent in legislating in respect of online behaviour.
5.1 Difficulties in legislating in respect of social media
At a Committee meeting on 6 th March 2013, the Minister for Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources, Mr. Pat Rabbitte, T.D. addressed the Committee on the difficulty posed
in regulating social media content. The Minister identified three particular difficulties from his
perspective:
1. Internet governance must be conducted on a multi-jurisdictional basis.
2. Social media is an integral part of a larger media eco-system and treated in the same
way as any media, with consideration of Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
3. While different areas of Government are affected by social media and have an
involvement, there is no single Department or State agency which can steer it.
5.2 Relevance of legislation currently in place
Digital Rights Ireland point out that Article 40.6.1 of Bunreacht na hireann shows that the
right to free speech is not absolute and this also applies online. The following pieces of
legislation may be relevant to cyberbullying offences.
58
http://www.internetsafety.ie/website/ois/oisweb.nsf/page/regulation-en
33
Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007
Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural resources, Pat Rabbitte, T.D. said that
while the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007 dealt with the use of the
telephone system to send grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages, the
law did not extend to social media. The Minister said that there appeared to be a gap in the
legislation relating to electronic communications infrastructure.
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 Section 10 (1) of this Act provides for
the criminal offence of harassment. This section provides that:
Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means
including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following,
watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an
offence.
Harassment is further explained in subsection (2) as being where:
he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the
other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and (b) his or
her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously
interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the
other.
Section 10 (3) of the 1997 Act allows a Court to order that a person cannot for a certain
period communicate by any means with the victim, i.e. a restraining order. This order can
be made in addition to or as an alternative to imposing a conviction under subsection (1).
Mr. Paul C. Dwyer of the National Anti-Bullying Coalition considers this legislation to be
useful for instances of cyberstalking or harrassing a person. However, he remarked that
subjectivity can be an issue and that guidance needs to be provided to An Garda Sochna
to clarify such issues.
Minister Rabbitte, in his presentation to the Committee, said that while the 1997 Act deals
with direct communications with someone, it does not deal with communication about
someone and is being interpreted in a very narrow sense by the courts.
Digital Rights Ireland also referred to Section 5 of this Act, which makes it an offence to
make threats to kill or cause serious harm to someone. This arose during the Committees
deliberations when the issue of threats made via YouTube were raised.
34
Post Office Amendment Act 1951
Section 13 of this Act makes it an offence for a person to send menacing, offensive,
indecent, or obscene messages via telephone. The Act was amended in 2007 to include text
messages (schedule 1, part 2 of the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007).
Although it has been suggested that the scope of this Act could be broadened to encompass
other forms of electronic communication, DRI express concern that this would create
potential criminal liability for any person placing any material on the internet. DRI said that by
doing so:
we effectively allow the most easily offended people to set the standard for freedom
of expression.
Mr. Fergal Crehan of DRI said that when this Act was amended in 2007 there was a good
reason for not including internet communications. He expressed the concern that:
the concept of intimacy of harassment would be lost. We would be dealing with

something that is spoken to the world at large but to nobody in particular.
Mr. Crehan also argued that amending the legislation to include online communications
would break the principle of parity between online and offline speech, making something
legal to say offline but not online. Mr. Crehan also said that it would add to the work burden
of the Garda computer crime unit. Finally, DRI argue that expanding Section 13 of the Act
would be in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of
expression).
The Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003
The placing of personal information about a person online, without their consent, is a breach
of the Data Protection Acts. This was raised during the Committees discussions by Mr. T.J.
McIntyre of Digital Rights Ireland who said that Irish data protection laws cover anyone who
is an unwilling subject of a YouTube video. A benefit of this legislation, he went on to say, is
that it is largely harmonized across Europe. This is important if the video or information is
hosted in another country. Mr. McIntyre questioned whether there was adequate awareness
of these rights.
35
The Criminal Damage Act 1991
This Act was brought up by Mr. Paul C. Dwyer of the National Anti-Bullying Coalition during
a Committee meeting on 13th March 2013. However, Mr. Dwyer argued that the legislation
dates back to posts and telegraphs and has not kept up with technology. Westlaw.ies
Annotated Statutes state that the Act penalizes unauthorized access to computers. Fines
and imprisonment are options if a person breaches the Act, along with a compensation order
for the injured party.
The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989
This Act prohibits incitement to hatred against a group of persons on account of one of the
following grounds; race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of
the travelling community or sexual orientation.59 Incitement includes publication, broadcast
and preparation of materials.
Criminal proceedings were issued under this Act against a man who in 2009 created a
Facebook page with an offensive title.60 This was the first case taken under the 1989 Act,
relating to online content. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that there was reasonable
doubt regarding the intent to incite hatred towards members of the traveller community.
Nasc, the Irish Immigrant Support Centre61, describe this Act as the only legislation in Ireland
that deals with racially motivated behavior in Ireland but argue that it was never intended to
deal with criminal acts where incitement is not a factor. To secure a conviction under the
1989 Act, Nasc write, the prosecution must prove that actions were intended to stir up or
incite hatred. Nasc believe this Act is inadequate in dealing with online racism.
Defamation legislation
The relevant provisions and legislation in Ireland, as regards issues touching upon online
defamation and redress for those subjected to this, are mainly Articles 40.3.1, 40.3.2 and
40.6.1 of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into
Irish law), the E-Commerce Directive and the Defamation Act 2009.
59
As per section 1(1) of the Act
60
http://www.pila.ie/bulletin/2011/october/5-october-2011/irish-district-court-dismisses-traveller-facebook-hate-
speech-case/
61
Nasc is a non-governmental organisation.
36
Minister Rabbitte referred to the Defamation Act 2009 in his meeting with the Committee and
Digital Rights Ireland referred to it in their presentation to the Committee where they singled
out Section 36 which deals with blasphemy. Under Section 6 (2); the tort of defamation
consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to
one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person i.e. if the defamed
person is the only person to see/hear, there is no legal action). It is not necessary, therefore,
that an individual be specifically named but, rather, an action can lie in relation to a
defamatory statement provided that the reasonable reader of, or audience member for the
publication, would identify the individual (including, for example, identifying the plaintiff as
part of a class of people). This is of particular relevance in terms of internet publications
where search engines and linking raises the possibility of the individual being identified not in
the defamatory statement but from the cross-referencing of search results.
Norwich Pharmacal orders62
Norwich Pharmacal orders can be used to allow for the disclosure of personal information of
internet users by ISPs in civil actions in the High Court. Mr. T.J. McIntyre of Digital Rights
Ireland said there were between six and seven applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders in
the last three years. Some examples of Irish cases seeking Norwich Pharmacal orders
include EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v Eircom Ltd, Ryanair v. Johnston, and Maguire v Gill.
These cases do not relate to cyberbullying.
Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994
Section 7(1) of this Act creates the offence of Distribution or display in public place of
material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene.
It further provides that:
It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any
writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or
62
These orders are named after the first case to allow this particular kind of disclosure, by the House
of Lords. Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Customs and Excise Commissioners (1974) AC 133.
37
obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether
a breach of the peace may be occasioned.
Recently a case was heard in Longford District Court where sixteen people were before the
Court for an alleged breach of the peace contrary to common law. The Defendants were
accused of uploading videos to YouTube which contained:
insults to both parties, threats of violence, repeated reference to people with mental
handicaps, homophobic comments and what was described as insulting and vulgar
behaviour.
A number of the Defendants were ordered to enter a peace bond following the hearing. 63
Clarification of existing legislation
The Anti-Bullying Working Group, in its report to the Minister for Education and Skills, made the
following recommendation:
at this time, the focus should be on securing implementation of existing legislative

requirements across the system rather than seeking to introduce new legislation.
DRI also recommend using existing legislation rather than creating further legislation to address
this issue. Nasc recommend that the Government clarify whether or not online racism falls under
the existing criminal and civil legislation. In addition Nasc recommend new legislation which
would include racial hate crimes and deal specifically with online racism. Spunout.ie (a youth-
focused website funded by the HSE) also recommend that the Government clarify the actions
which can be taken under Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, in
relation to barring or restraining orders).
63
Judge orders defendants in YouTube case to enter peace bond, 22/02/12 (Longford Leader), available
at:http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/local/judge-orders-defendants-in-youtube-case-to-enter-peace-bond-1-
3549315
38
6. Initiatives at EU level
This section looks at the approach taken at the EU level to tackle cyber bullying and other
misuse of social media.
6.1 The Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol
At a Committee meeting on 22 nd March 2013, Mr. T. J. McIntyre, was asked:

is there an issue with regard to posts made in a different jurisdiction to where the
complainant is living, for example, China or the UK? What blockages exist in terms of
them seeking redress?
In response Mr. McIntyre explained that:
Ireland has mutual legal assistance treaties with a number of jurisdictions, most
importantly the US, because the vast majority of these services tend to be
headquartered in the US. If something amounts to a criminal offence, it is already the
case that the computer crime investigation unit could make use of that process to get
information from, for example, Google in Mountain View, California. The mechanisms
are already in place.
One problem is that Ireland has yet to ratify the convention on cybercrime. We entered
into this convention and agreed to it in 2001. We intended to implement it and ratify it
by 2003 and we are still waiting.
The Convention on Cyber-Crime, was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001. It is the
only binding international instrument on this issue.64 The Convention on Cybercrime is
intended to be used as a guideline for countries to develop national legislation to deal with
Cybercrime, while serving as a framework for international cooperation. 65 The Convention
has been signed and ratified by a number of the Council of Europe (CoE) Member States,
along with various other CoE partner states such as Canada, the United States, South Africa
and Japan. Ireland signed the convention in 2002 but has not ratified it.
On November 7th, 2002, the Committee of Ministers of the CoE adopted the Additional
Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime. The Additional Protocol requires ratifying
Member States to pass laws criminalizing acts of racist or xenophobic nature committed
64
http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/default_en.asp
65
Ibid.
39
through computer networks. This includes the dissemination of racist or xenophobic

material, the making of racist or xenophobic threats or insults, the denial of the Holocaust
and other genocides. It also commits ratifying nations to extend to these crimes the
investigative capabilities and procedures created pursuant to the main Convention. Ireland
has not ratified this Additional Protocol.
6.2 The 2009 agreement with internet companies

In 2009 the European Commission brokered an agreement among major internet
companies. The basis of this agreement was to improve the safety of under 18s who use
social networking sites. The agreement was the result of discussions held by the Social
Networking Task Force which was set up by the European Commission in April 2008. The
Commission writes that the outcome:
is a good example of industry self-regulation, an approach favoured by the
Commission if effectively implemented.66
European initiatives include the:
Safer Internet Programme (2009-2013)

Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (2012)
6.3 Safer Internet Programme (2009-2013)
The first Safer Internet Programme was created in 1999 by the European Commission. The
current Safer Internet Programme (2009-2013) places more focus on grooming and
bullying.67 The aims of the Safer Internet Programme are to:
inform young people, parents, carers and teachers of the potential risks that
youngsters may encounter online, and
fight illegal and harmful content and conduct online.
66
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-232_en.htm?locale=en
67
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/policy/programme/index_en.htm
40
Insafe and safer internet centres
The Safer Internet Programme also part funds Insafe, a European network of Awareness
Centres, which promote the safe and responsible use of the internet and mobile devices to
young people. The Programme works with the help of Safer Internet Centres which are now
present in 30 European countries, most including a helpline and a hotline.68
In Ireland the Safer Internet Centre is coordinated by the Office for Internet Safety (OIS). The
project involves:
safer internet awareness activities, managed by the National Centre for Technology
in Education (NCTE);
a hotline coordinated by the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland (ISPAI);
two helplines run by the National Parents Council Primary (NPC) and the Irish
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC).69
Hotlines
Hotlines are places where the public can report illegal content they encounter online. The
hotlines can then investigate these reports. If it is found that the content is illegal, the hotline
will refer the matter to the relevant countries law enforcement agency and also the Internet
Service Provider for removal. If the content is hosted in another country, it will be passed on
to that countrys hotline.70
Action 40 of the Digital Agenda for Europe provides for the installation of hotlines by 2013:
Member States should fully implement hotlines for reporting illegal online content,
organise awareness raising campaigns on online safety for children, and offer teaching
online safety in schools, and encourage providers of online services to implement self-
regulatory measures regarding online safety for children by 2013.
68
http://www.saferinternet.eu/web/insafe-inhope/about-the-safer-internet-programme
69
http://www.saferinternet.org/ireland
70
Ibid.
41
The Commission goes on to say that, while this should be co-ordinated at EU level, it must
be implemented at national level with the financial and political support of Member States . 71
Hotlines in Ireland
INHOPE (International Association of Internet Hotlines) co-ordinates these hotlines.72 In

Ireland, the Hotline (www.hotline.ie) is part financed by the European Commissions Safer
Internet Plus Programme. It is supervised by the Department of Justice, Office for Internet
Safety (OIS), in cooperation with An Garda Sochna, and is a member of INHOPE. 73
There are two ways, facilitated by hotline.ie, in which the public can report content
encountered online. They can either click the make a report button on the home page or
contact the service by phone, email or letter. Hotline.ie report that their most commonly
downloaded file is Cyberbullying.pdf.74 However, in their annual report 2012, Hotline.ie
write that in most cases they are unable to deal with cyberbullying reports, as usually the
content is not illegal.75
6.4 European Commission Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (2012)
The Strategy for a Better Internet for Children writes of the proposal to combine a series of
instruments based around legislation, self-regulation and financial support.76 With regard to
regulation the strategy states:77
Regulation remains an option, but, where appropriate, it should preferably be avoided,

in favour of more adaptable self-regulatory tools, and of education and empowerment.
The strategy aims to empower children to deal with cyberbullying while putting in place
mechanisms for reporting content EU-wide. These mechanisms will make it: easier for
citizens to report cybercrimes, particularly in the context of the development of the network
of national cybercrime alert platforms and the future European Cybercrime Centre.
71
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-iii-trust-security/action-40-member-states-implement-harmful-
content-alert-hotlines
72
http://www.inhope.org/gns/our-members.aspx
73
http://www.hotline.ie/library/pr13032012parents.pdf
74
http://www.internetsafety.ie/website/ois/oisweb.nsf/page/73148FCEBF3669E780257B5C0052089D/$File/rep201
3.pdf
75
Ibid.
76
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:EN:PDF
77
Ibid.
42
The Strategy outlines several detailed actions which should be taken by the Commisson,
Industry and Member States to make the internet safer for children. Those which relate to
Member States and Industry are included in Section 9 on page 59, under their respective
78
aims.
Box 1: Summary - European Commission actions to promote internet safety among
children and young people 2013.
What has the Commission done up to now?79
Launch a European strategy for a better internet for children to give children the digital skills
and tools they need to fully and safely benefit from being online (see action 36)
Launch a benchmarking exercise of safer internet policies and action across Europe
including an analysis of the current resources used for these activities and their breakdown
between the Commission and Member States
Online safety in schools:
European Schoolnet (EUN) co-ordinator of INSAFE network, co-funded by the Safer

Internet Programme, launched on Safer Internet Day 2012 the "eSafety label project" to
provide Online safety support and accreditation for European schools. This is a multi-
stakeholder project co-ordinated by EUN and involving a number of leading companies
(Kaspersky Labs, Liberty Global, Microsoft, Telefonica) and European Education Ministries
and educational organisations in Austria, Belgium-Flanders, Estonia Italy, Spain and
Portugal). www.esafetylabel.eu.
What will the Commission do?
In 2013:
Continue to support the Safer Internet Centres established in all Member States and that
run hotlines, awareness centres and helplines (see action 36)
A new EURYDICE survey on the implementation of online safety in schools may be

launched. A previous survey was carried out in 2009 to identify how national education
systems approach online safety issues faced by children and what children learn about
online safety in school.
78
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:EN:PDF
79
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-iii-trust-security/action-40-member-states-implement-harmful-
content-alert-hotlines
43
7. Legislative position in other countries
7.1 Laws in the United States of America
There is no federal law in the USA which deals with bullying, however in some cases,
bullying overlaps with discriminatory harassment, e.g. when it is based on race, national
origin, color, sex, etc. In such cases, federally-funded schools (including colleges and
universities) have an obligation to resolve the harassment.80
According to the Cyberbullying Research Centre in the USA:
At last count, 44 states had laws regarding bullying, and 30 of those included some
mention of electronic forms of harassment. Almost all of these laws simply direct school
districts to have a bullying and harassment policy, though few delineate the actual content
of such policies.
As a recent example, in May 2010, the State of Massachusetts signed an anti-bullying bill
after the suicide of a teenage girl who was cyberbullied. The bill provides a detailed and
clear explanation of what cyberbullying means. For instance, cyberbullying includes creating
a web page or blog to assume the identity of someone else, or posting messages purporting
to be from someone else.81
Hinduja and Patchin (2009) put together a cyberbullying fact sheet containing a brief review
of relevant legal and policy issues in the USA. The factsheet also includes previous court
cases:82
One of the major areas of contentionseems to be whether school districts can

interfere in the behaviour or speech of students that occurs away from campus. While
this is murky legal water, some courts have upheld the actions of school administrators
in disciplining students for off-campus actions. In J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School
District (2000) the court made it clear that schools do have the authority to discipline
students when speech articulated or behaviour committed off-campus results in a clear
disruption of the school environment. Here, the school district was able to demonstrate
disruption and a negative impact on the target of the incident.
80
http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/federal/index.html
81
No.3.
82
http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_legal_issues.pdf
44
As noted by Bhat et al. (2010) there has been a change in how schools in the USA treat
cyberbullying. Whereas previously schools focused on cyberbullying which occurred during
the school day or using school technology, there is now a growing belief that schools need to
deal with cyberbullying which happens outside of school time, as it is an issue which
compromises the learning environment.
The Massachusetts legislation acknowledges this, while anti-bullying law in Ohio mandates
that every school should have an anti-bullying policy which contains procedures for
responding to, investigating, reporting, and documenting incidents of harassment.83
7.2 Laws in New Zealand
New Zealand has recently (April 2013) proposed legislation which will make it an offence to
send messages or material online which is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing
or knowingly false. In addition the new legislation will create a new offence of incitement to
commit suicide (whether or not suicide resulted or was attempted).84 Offenders could be sent
to jail for up to three months under the legislation, or face a $2,000 fine.
7.3 Laws in Australia
In Australia the Criminal Code Act 1995, makes it an offence to misuse telecommunication
services to menace, threaten or hoax other persons.85
In addition, anti-stalking laws have been used in cases of cyberbullying. An example is the
2010 prosecution for stalking in Victoria by a man who sent several threatening text
messages to a person who then committed suicide. The perpetrator pleaded guilty to the
charge and received an 18- month community-based order.86
83
No.3.
84
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10876001
85
Butler, Desmond A., Kift, Sally M., Campbell, Marilyn A., Slee, Phillip, & Spears, Barbara (2011) School policy
responses to cyberbullying : an Australian legal perspective. International Journal of Law and Education, 16(2),
pp. 7-28. (http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49320/2/49320.pdf)
86
Ibid.
45
7.4 Laws in Canada
In April 2013 Nova Scotia introduced legislation to create Canada's first cyberbullying
investigative unit, following the death of a teenager who was being cyberbullied. 87 The
proposed Cyber-Safety Act would allow the unit to issue prevention orders that would
prevent someone from communicating online.
In addition the proposed legislation would allow victims of cyberbullying and their families to
seek a court protection.88 It also clarifies the authority schools have when dealing with
cyberbullying in the classroom.
7.5 Laws in Asia
Microsofts Trustworthy Computing Unit conducted a survey among twenty-five countries,

which included seven Asia Pacific countries Australia, China, India, Japan, Malaysia,
Pakistan and Singapore.89 The study found that China, Singapore and India had the highest
levels of cyberbullying, with 70%, 58% and 53% of respondents respectively reporting they
were cyberbullied.90
Anti-cyberbullying legislation is not widely used in Asian countries. 91 Singapore, debated the
use of such legislation but opted for self-regulation instead.92 Also, Singapores existing laws
may be applied to cyberbullying.93
7.6 Anonymity & real name verification laws
At a committee meeting on the 7 th of March 2013 Ms. Sinad McSweeny, Director of Public
Policy Europe argued that anonymity is important because it gives: people who would not
otherwise have a voice an opportunity to be part of discussions and debates
87
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/25/ns-rehtaeh-cyberbullying-unit.html
88
http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/nova-scotia-introduces-cyberbullying-legislation-1.1253827
89
http://security.networksasia.net/content/china-singapore-top-charts-cyberbullying-among-youths
90
http://security.networksasia.net/content/china-singapore-top-charts-cyberbullying-among-youths
91
No.3.
92
Ibid.
93
http://sbr.com.sg/information-technology/commentary/what-you-really-need-know-about-cyber-bullying-in-
singapore
46
However, at the same meeting Senator Fiach Mac Conghal expressed a view that:
There is a moment at which anonymity becomes abusive, because one cannot

engage on an ongoing basis on Twitter with somebody who is completely anonymous.
The dangers of allowing anonymous users to post comments has been a particular focus in
criticisms of Ask.fm. The idea of requiring online users to register their names was
suggested by some commentators. However, there are diverging views on retaining the
anonymity of users of social media.
Real name verification laws require internet users to register under their true identity if they
wish to post online, thus removing anonymity. The experience of two jurisdictions (the
Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and South Korea) which have attempted to impose real
name verification laws is worth examining. The South Korean law was adopted in 2007 amid
widespread concern that:
internet users were deluging websites with malicious and defamatory comments
and false rumours; in a few cases such statements were blamed in the case of
suicides of celebrities.94
The law required that websites with more than 100,000 visitors per day, including some
newspaper sites, must record the real identities of visitors who posted comments. However
in August 2012, an eight member panel of the South Korean Constitutional Court ruled
unanimously that the law violated the right to free speech. The law was also found to
discriminate against local websites, thus forcing Koreans to use overseas-based websites or
social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter. In addition, the measures had been
criticised by the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression and Reporters
Without Borders.95
In his submission to the Committee, TJ McIntyre of Digital Rights Ireland, referred to

problems experienced by South Korea, when they introduced real name verification laws,
but found that it made South Korea more vulnerable to privacy breaches and identity theft.
94
Choe, Sang-Hun, South Korean Court Rejects Online Name Verification Law, New York Times, August 23,
2012. See also Cho, Daegon, Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A Poison or Cure for Privacy?
(Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS), June 2011)
95
A non-profit organisation which defends press freedom.
47
Freedom House (an independent watchdog organisation) in an article on PRCs response to

social media and the internet, describe PRCs internet as beginning to resemble an intranet
and quote a recent study which found that of 1,400 blog hosting and bulletin-board
platforms, 13% of posts were deleted.96 While sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are
blocked in the PRC97 there has been a proliferation of microblogs and microblogging98
services like Sina Weibo (a chinese microblogging website) have grown rapidly, with more
than 300 million users by early 2012.99 It is by means of these blogs that many scandals and
news items break. In December 2012 the PRC introduced a user verification law.
According to King et al. (2013)100 the reason for restrictions on social media is to:
reduce the probability of collective action by clipping social ties whenever any
collective movements are in evidence or expected.
96
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2012/china
97
Ibid.
98
Microblogging is a combination of blogging and instant messaging, examples include Twitter and Tumblr.
99
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2012/china
100
King, G., Pan, J., Roberts, M.E. (2013). How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences
Collective Expression. American Political Science Review.
48
8. Possible actions and initiatives
This section takes recommendations and comments made during the Committees meetings,
and those arising from submissions made to the Committee, and presents them in the form
of actions and initiatives which may be considered.
8.1 Educating children, teachers and parents

Several stakeholders raised the importance of educating young people on how to behave
appropriately online. Mr. Paul C. Dwyer of the National Anti-Bullying Coalition at a
Committee meeting on 13th March 2013 said:
We should learn from road safety, and the three Es education, enforcement and
engineering.
This education would also need to be provided to parents of young people. The European
Commission has drafted a strategy on the topic of a better Internet for Children, which
proposes actions to be undertaken by the Commission, member states and industry. One
aim of the strategy is to give parents and children the technical skills necessary to ensure
the online protection of children. Likewise the Council of Europe paper Young people, well-
being and risk online urges:
the design of educational and awareness raising initiatives which develop children
and young peoples understanding of their human rights
Whole school approach
The EU Kids Online survey (2011) found that Irish parents were active in mediating their
childrens internet safety (91%). This compares to an EU average of 87%. 101 However,
research by Hotline.ie102 found that only 37% of Irish parents installed basic security
measures, such as software that blocks access to inappropriate websites. This is despite a
finding in the same survey that 67% of parents in Ireland are worried about what their
children may come across online.
101
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20(2009-
11)/National%20reports/IrishReportSummary.pdf
102
http://www.hotline.ie/library/pr13032012parents.pdf
49
COST (an intergovernmental framework for European Cooperation in Science and

Technology)103 conducted a review of 54 national guidelines for preventing cyber bullying, in
Europe, Israel and Australia. The review concluded that it is essential for schools to take a
whole-school approach to the issue of cyberbullying and focus on improving the self-help
skills of students. In addition, the report concludes, teachers should be helped to improve
their understanding of group dynamics and conflict management skills as part of their
professional development training. The report also concludes that parents should become
more knowledgeable about the internet and establish regular communication with their
children about online behaviour.
Spunout.ie also recommend a whole-community approach should be taken to tackle cyber

bullying along with an education programme teaching young people how to behave
respectfully online and protect themselves from bullying and other abuses. They also
recommend that schools develop a new anonymous reporting tool called Bullytag as is
already used in Canada. BullyTag is a free to use smart phone application which enables
users to anonymously report bullying.104 The application categorizes incident reports and
notifies the appropriate authorities through the BullyTag Dashboard. As well as victims of
bullying, the application encourages those who witness bullying to come forward. BullyTag
states:
In most bullying incidents, bystanders usually do nothing. If the bully faces no
obstruction from the people around, it gives permission to continue behaving badly.
Incidents of bullying go largely unreported because those who can make a difference
feel they risk becoming the next victim.
BullyTag was designed and developed by Timeless Technologies, a software engineering

firm. It allows the user to take a photo or video/audio recording of a bullying incident. It is
currently available on iphone and Android, while there are plans to make it available on
Windows Phone and Blackberry.105
Digital skills
Google also proposes that:
the Government has a role to make sure parents, teachers and students acquire
the digital skills they need to keep themselves safe online.
103
http://www.cost.eu/about_cost
104
http://www.bullytag.com/
105
Ibid.
50
Furthermore, Google believe that a digital literacy curriculum in schools would improve
childrens safety. Google has said it would be happy to work with the Department of
Education and Skills on such an initiative. Presently, Google have teamed up with
iKeepSafe, an online safety organisation to provide a Digital Literacy Tour which describes
itself as interactive, discussion filled and allows students to learn through hands-on and
scenario activities 106
Webwise.ie (an Irish internet safety awareness raising centre) is a resource for parents and
teachers to get up to speed on social media. The site includes articles on Ask.fm, Twitter
and Facebook among others, alerting parents and teachers to the risks of these platforms,
as well as how to protect children against cyber bullying. Ofcoms Parent Port in the UK is
designed to makes it easier for parents to complain about internet material by directing
parents to the right regulator for their specific area of concern. 107
The Garda Sochna Primary Schools Programme module Connect with Respect aims to
encourage bystanders to intervene when they see cases of cyber bullying. In 2008, a guide
to cyberbullying called Get with IT! Was produced under a joint initiative between the Office
for Internet Safety, the National Centre for Technology in Education, O2 and Barnardos.The
aim of the guidelines is to increase awareness of cyberbullying and help identify, prevent,
and respond to it.108
8.2 Schools programmes/actions

The Childrens Ombudsman undertook a consultation into bullying in Irish schools, which
consulted with over 300 children and young people from the ages of 10 to 17. 109 The
findings were published in 2012 under the title: Dealing with Bullying in Schools. At the
launch of the report, the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan said: 110
It is clear from this consultation that children and young people share the concerns of
adults about bullying. They told us that they wanted to feel they could make a
106
http://www.google.ie/edu/resources/digital-literacy.html#
107
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2013/05/find-out-more-about-parentport/
108
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Minister%20Ahern%20launches%20GET%20with%20IT!%20A%20guide%2
0to%20cyberbullying
109
http://www.oco.ie/whats-new/media/press-releases/childrens-ombudsman-launches-bullying-report.html
110
http://www.oco.ie/whats-new/media/press-releases/childrens-ombudsman-launches-bullying-report.html
51
significant contribution to dealing effectively with bullying in schoolsThe children and

young people placed particular emphasis on preventive work especially on initiatives
dedicated to raising awareness of bullying as well as programmes focused on tackling
the discriminatory attitudes that can give rise to bullying."
The report recommended that a more open culture be created in schools, whereby students
would feel that they can talk about and report bullying to a teacher without being accused of
informing on fellow-pupils.111
In relation to cyber bullying the reports recommendations are:

explaining what cyber-bullying is and what forms it can take;
encouraging children and young people to take responsibility for their words and
actions online and sensitising children and young people to the impact that their
words and actions online can have;
supporting children and young people to fully appreciate the damaging and
sometimes devastating consequences of cyber-bullying on victims;
highlighting to children and young people that there can also be adverse
consequences for those who engage in cyber-bullying, including the existence of a
permanent record of their actions, which they may regret in the future when they are
no longer involved in this kind of behaviour;
advising children and young people about what they should do if they experience
or come across cyber-bullying for example, save the comments/emails; speak to
a parent, teacher or another trusted adult about it; and report it immediately to the
service provider.
In January 2013 the Minister for Education and Skills, Ruair Quinn T.D. and the Minister for
Children and Youth Affairs, Frances Fitzgerald T.D. launched a new Action Plan on
Bullying.112 The new action plan sets out twelve actions to help prevent and tackle bullying in
primary and second level schools.
Among the twelve actions recommended by the working group are proposals to: 113
Support a media campaign focused on cyber bullying specifically targeted at young
people as part of Safer Internet Day 2013;
111
Ibid.
112
http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2013-Press-Releases/PR-%202013-01-29.html
113
Ibid.
52
Establish a new national anti-bullying website;

Begin development immediately of new national anti-bullying procedures for all
schools. These will include an anti-bullying policy template and a template for
recording incidents of bullying in schools. These should be in place by the start of the
next school year;
Devise a co-ordinated plan of training for parents and for school boards of
management;
Provide Department of Education and Skills support for the Stand Up! Awareness
Week Against Homophobic Bullying organised by BeLonG To Youth Services;
Review current Teacher Education Support Service provision to identify what training
and Continuous Professional Development teachers may need to help them
effectively tackle bullying;
In addition to the above recommendations, Minister Quinn announced that the Department
of Education & Skills will be supporting a revision of the Stay Safe Programme for primary
schools. The Stay Safe Programme is a personal safety skills programme designed for use
with primary school children from Junior Infants through to 6th class. 114 The programme
teaches children to recognise and resist abuse/victimisation and teaches them that they
should always tell an adult who can help. The Minister announced that the revised
programme would address new forms of risk, such as cyber bullying.
8.3 More open communication between schools, hotlines and social media
companies
On 7th March 2013 the Committee was informed that the Safer Internet Centre in the United
Kingdom takes calls from schools where they are told what all of the individual platforms
have available in terms of advice and reporting.
At the same meeting Deputy Patrick ODonovan cited an article in the Irish Examiner quoting
a spokesperson from the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals who
stated that social networks ought to have a dedicated liaison officer whose job it is
to take calls from schools and parents and act promptly in deleting offensive posts.
114
http://www.staysafe.ie/
53
8.4 Public Awareness Campaigns

The Watch your Space public awareness campaign on cyber-bullying was launched by
Minister for Education and Skills, Ruair Quinn, T.D. in February 2013.
Watch Your Space is a website for young people to show their support for victims of
cyberbullying. The site, which is run by Webwise.ie offers advice and information to young
people about cyber bullying.115
The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) has recently launched the Think Before You Type
campaign in partnership with NUS-USI, the National Youth Council of Ireland, Headstrong,
SpunOut.ie, Headsup.ie and Reachout.com. The coalition of youth organisations argue that
cyberbullying needs to be addressed at a national level.116 The USI launched the USI Guide
to Cyberbullying which includes advice on how to deal with cyberbullying and information on
available support services.
8.5 Provide more resources to the Data Protection Commissioner and the
Computer Crime Investigation Unit
DRI stress that because Google, Facebook and LinkedIn are based in Ireland, the Data
Protection Commissioner has one of the biggest workloads of any regulator in Europe.
However, the group maintain that there is a lack of funding for the Data Protection
Commissioner and recommend that adequate funding be provided.
It should be noted that the Data Protection Commissioners budget was increased by 20% in
the budget for the Office in 2013, along with additional staffing resources. 117
8.6 Accessibility of the court system
Anyone who believes that their rights are being infringed can seek an injunction in the civil
courts, though certain legal tests must be met before such an order will be granted. It should
115
http://watchyourspace.ie/AboutUs.shtm
116
http://usi.ie/2013/03/usi-launches-cyberbullying-awareness-campaign-think-before-you-type/
117
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/03/minister-shatter-stresses-government-support-for-the-office-of-
the-data-protection-commissioner/
54
be noted, however, that injunctions are generally sought in the High Court and can,
therefore, be costly.
The potentially prohibitive cost of taking legal action is something which arose during the
Committees hearings. At a meeting on 7 th March 2013 Deputy Patrick ODonovan said:
Regardless of whether something nasty is said about someone in a broadsheet

newspaper, on radio or on a social medium, the biggest problem is that the courts in
this country are the preserve of the rich.
In 2006 The Competition Authority published a report on Competition in the Legal

Profession. The report made 29 recommendations aimed at maximising competition for
consumers of legal services.118 The Chairperson of the Authority Ms Isolde Goggin, said the
report found:
that competition in legal services was severely hampered by many unnecessary

restrictions on the commercial freedom of buyers and sellers permeating the legal
profession.119
In an attempt to reduce the cost of legal proceedings to consumers the Legal Services
Regulation Bill 2011 was published on 12 October 2011, and forms part of the States
commitment under the EU/IMF Agreement to review costs in the legal professions. The Bill
provides for the establishment of an Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator to replace the
Office of the Taxing Master and contains a number of provisions designed to reduce legal
costs. As of 10th June 2013 the Bill has not yet passed all stages.
Replying to a parliamentary question on 1st May 2013, Minister Alan Shatter, T.D. stated
that:
Under the Bill it will no longer be permissible to set fees as a specified percentage or
proportion of damages payable to a client from contentious business. It will no longer
be permissible to charge Junior Counsel fees as a specified percentage or proportion
of Senior Counsel fees. Legal practitioners will be obliged to provide more detailed
information about legal costs from the outset of their dealings with clients.120
While this legislation seeks to reduce the costs of pursuing legal action it, it is possible that
the costs of court proceedings will remain prohibitive for some people.
118
http://www.tca.ie/images/uploaded/documents/0321%20Opening%20Statement%20JOC_Isolde%20Goggin.p
df
119
Ibid.
120
Parliamentary Question no.18628/13.
55
8.7 Provide training and guidance to Garda and the DPP
Nasc recommend training for the Garda and the DPP on how to investigate and prosecute
online racial crimes. Spunout.ie recommends that the Garda are given clear guidance on
how to deal with cases of bullying and cyberbullying. Speaking to the Committee on 20 th
March 2013, Ms. Sue Duke, of Google, said there could be an improvement in the education
of law enforcement agencies on the tools which are available to them to investigate online
crime.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends continuous professional development for public officials
working in criminal justice so that they are given clear guidance on how to deal with cases of
bullying and cyberbullying.
8.8 Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime
Several stakeholders recommended that Ireland ratify the Council of Europe Convention on
Cybercrime. Digital Rights Ireland said that this would help to facilitate dedicated points of
contact between national police forces.
8.9 Provide more support for peer-to-peer learning projects

The importance of peer-to-peer learning projects, whereby children design their own safety
campaigns, was raised by Google during its presentation to the Committee on 20 th March
2013. Google gave the example of the Beat Bullying charity in the UK, with a cyber-
mentoring scheme in which young people mentor their peers. Google stated that they would
be happy to work with the Government in taking a lead on projects such as this. At this
Committee meeting Ms. Sabine Frank, of Google, said that:
Our experience is that teenagers take it much more seriously if people of the same
age educate them and it is much easier for them to turn to them if they have a question
or problem.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that more emphasis be placed on educating parents, teachers
and children on how to safely use social media. For children, this might incorporate peer-to-
peer learning whereby children mentor their peers. It is the Committees view that advice and
technical support should come from the industry. The SPHE curriculum may also be revised
to incorporate this.
56
9. European Commission Strategy for a Better Internet for Children

(2012)
1) Promoting positive online experiences for young children.

Industry should:
develop and offer targeted, interactive quality content for children, as well as user
friendly tools that encourage their creativity and help them learn.
support financially and/or technically initiatives in this field coming from children
themselves, schools or NGOs.
Member States should:

match the Commissions support for and actively promote initiatives aimed at
creating high-quality content online for children.
coordinate between themselves in this field, with the support of the Commission, and
implement standards for quality content online for children.
2) Digital and media literacy and teaching online safety in schools.

step up the implementation of strategies to include teaching online safety in school
curricula by 2013.
reinforce informal education about online safety and provide for online safety
policies in schools and adequate teacher training.
support public-private partnerships to reach the above goals.
Industry should:
engage in private-public partnerships to support the development of interactive tools
and platforms providing educational and awareness materials for teachers and
children, building on existing initiatives.
3) Scaling up awareness activities and youth participation.

match the Commissions support for public awareness raising campaigns at national
level.
involve children when developing national campaigns and/or legislation with an
impact on their online activities.
57
match the Commissions support for the national Youth Panels.
Industry should support the scaling up of awareness activities by:

providing funding and technical support to NGOs and education providers for the
development of resources
disseminating awareness material to their customers either at the point of sale or
through their online channels.
4) Simple and robust reporting tools for users.

Industry should:
establish and deploy EU-wide, in cooperation with relevant national actors, a
mechanism allowing children using their services to report harmful content and
conduct. This should be visible, easy to find, recognisable, accessible to all and
available at any stage of the online experience where a child may need it. It should
have clear and commonly understood reporting categories and a clear back-office
infrastructure ensuring a fast and appropriate follow-up. Reports handling should be
done in line with the legislation in force on data protection.

provide the necessary support for setting up and deploying the reporting
mechanisms, especially where cooperation with partners such as helplines and law
enforcement bodies is necessary.
monitor their effective functioning at national level.
render the 116000 hotlines operational.
5) Age-appropriate privacy settings.

Industry is expected to implement transparent default age-appropriate privacy settings, with
clear information and warnings to minors of the potential consequences of any changes
they make in their default privacy settings and contextual information on the privacy
level of every piece of information required or suggested to set up an online profile.
implement technical means for electronic identification and authentication.

ensure the implementation of EU legislation in this field at national level.
58
encourage the adoption of self-regulatory measures by industry and follow their

implementation at national level.
support awareness raising activities at national level.
6) Wider availability and use of parental controls.

Industry should:
ensure the availability of parental controls that are simple to configure, are user
friendly and accessible for all on all internet-enabled devices available in Europe. The
tools should be efficient on any type of device and for any type of content, including
user-generated content. They should comply with best practices to ensure
accountability and transparency. The tools should be promoted so as to ensure the
widest possible awareness of their existence and take-up.
Member States are invited to:

support industrys efforts in this field and to follow up their implementation on
devices sold on their territory.
perform tests and certification cycles for parental control tools.
promote their availability.
7) Wider use of age rating and content classification.

Industry should:
establish an EU approach to age rating and content classification applicable across
services as described above, building on the success of existing initiatives such as
PEGI.
look into how these systems could be made interpretable by parental controls.
Member States are invited to

cooperate in line with their own regulations in the field and encourage relevant
stakeholders at national level to contribute to the definition and implementation of
EU age-rating and content classification systems.
support the complaints process necessary for the proper functioning of such
systems.
8) Online advertising and overspending.

Industry shall observe the legislation in force, particularly as regards online profiling and
59
behavioural advertising. It should

provide transparent, clear and age-appropriate information about the costs of
services that can be acquired online and avoid default settings that would easily
allow children to access premium services for which additional payment is necessary.
avoid addressing children directly and encouraging them to buy virtual goods or
credits with their mobile phone or other means that do not require prior parental
control. Contextual early warnings about additional costs should be envisaged to
empower children and parents.
build on self-regulatory standards such as those defined by the European Advertising
Standards Alliance for behavioural advertising and proactively implement measures
to avoid the exposure of children to inappropriate advertising in any form of online
media.
adopt measures to prevent children from accessing on-line gambling sites.

ensure that legislation in this field is observed by companies active at national level.
support industry in developing codes of conduct regarding inappropriate advertising
online and to monitor their implementation at national level.
9) Faster and systematic identification of child sexual abuse material

disseminated through various online channels, notification and takedown of
this material.
Member States should
increase the resources of law enforcement bodies that fight against child abuse
material online.
ensure, in line with the Directive on combating child sexual abuse that effective
investigative tools are available to enhance the investigator's capacities to identify
child victims, guaranteeing that effective safeguards are in place to ensure
democratic accountability in the use of such tools.
match the support for the functioning and visibility of hotlines at national level where
the public can report illegal content found online.
support the improvement of cooperation between hotlines and industry for taking
down child abuse material.
60
Industry
will be encouraged to take steps, including proactive measures, to remove child sex
abuse material from the internet should reinforce cooperation with law enforcement
bodies and hotlines to refine notice and takedown procedures and to establish
benchmarks.
will be encouraged to develop and use tools to increase the effectiveness of the
identification of child sex abuse images, notice and takedown procedures, and the
prevention of re-uploading.
10) Cooperating with international partners to fight against child sexual abuse
and child sexual exploitation.
support the Commission in its efforts to boost cooperation with international partners
Industry is invited to
exchange best practice in this field and cooperate with partners all over the world.
61
10. Hyperlinks to the Transcripts of Committee Meetings
Meeting held on Wednesday 6 March 2013: Presentations by Pat Rabbitte T.D.,

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Office for
Internet Security
Meeting held on Thursday 7 March 2013: Presentations by Twitter and Facebook
Meeting held on Wednesday 13 March 2013: Presentation by the National Anti-

Bullying Coalition.
Meeting held on Wednesday 20 March 2013: Presentations by Google and Digital

Rights Ireland
62
11. List of those who made a submission
Mary Aiken - Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Walter Campbell
Annette Cosgrove Galway Mayo Institute of Technology
Fergal Crehan B.L. - Digital Rights Ireland
David Crowley Science Foundation of Ireland
Clare Daly T.D.
Sue Duke - Head of Public Policy, Google
Professor Mark Durkin - Ulster Business School
Paul C. Dwyer - National Anti-Bullying Coalition
Sabine Frank - Media Literacy Policy Counsel, Google
Ensuring Safety On-Line (ESOL)
Brian Fallon - The Journal.ie
Sen Fallon - National Anti-Bullying Coalition
Tom Felle Head of Journalism, University of Limerick
Joe Fernandes
Sean Flanagan Co. Tipperary
Joanna Fortune Solamh Parent Child Relationship Clinic
Richard Humphreys S.C.
David King
Brian and Jemma Langan Westport, Co. Mayo
Colin Larkin - National Anti-Bullying Coalition
Katharine Larkin - New Ground Ltd
Dr Kay MacKeogh - Dublin City University (retired)
Denise McCarthy Union of Students in Ireland
Paul McCusker - Letterkenny Institute of Technology
Simon McGarr - Digital Rights Ireland
T.J. McIntyre Digital Rights Ireland
Dr Ciarn McMahon Psychbook and Candidate.ie
Sinead McSweeney - Director of Public Policy for Europe, Twitter
Simon Milner - Policy Director for the UK & Ireland, Facebook
Canon Stephen Neill Cloughjordan, Co. Tipperary
Colm Noctor - St Patricks University Hospital, Dublin 8
Ger OBrien Web Developer, Drupal Projects
Mark OHagan - Stream Solutions
Brian ONeill - Dublin Institute of Technology
Aileen OToole
Ian Power SpunOut.ie
Simon Prim NASC, Irish Immigrant Support Group
Claire Regan
Mary Sheridan Principal, St Bricins College, Co. Monaghan
The Life Institute
63
12. Terms of Reference of the Committee
a. Functions of the Committee derived from Standing Orders [DSO 82A; SSO 70A]
(1) The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dil on
(a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of the
relevant Government Department or Departments and associated public
bodies as the Committee may select, and
(b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Department or
Departments.
(2) The Select Committee may be joined with a Select Committee appointed by
Seanad ireann to form a Joint Committee for the purposes of the functions set
out below, other than at paragraph (3), and to report thereon to both Houses of
the Oireachtas.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Select Committee shall
consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments, such
(a) Bills,
(b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within the
meaning of Standing Order 164,
(c) Estimates for Public Services, and
(d) other matters as shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dil,
and
(e) Annual Output Statements, and
(f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committee may
select.
(4) The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of the
relevant Department or Departments and associated public bodies, and report
thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas:
(a) matters of policy for which the Minister is officially responsible,
(b) public affairs administered by the Department,
(c) policy issues arising from Value for Money and Policy Reviews
conducted or commissioned by the Department,
(d) Government policy in respect of bodies under the aegis of the
Department,
(e) policy issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the
State or which are established or appointed by a member of the
Government or the Oireachtas,
(f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill published by the Minister,
(g) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft before either
House or both Houses and those made under the European
Communities Acts 1972 to 2009,
64
(h) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas
pursuant to the Public Service Management Act 1997,
(i) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, and laid
before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of the Department or
bodies referred to in paragraph (4)(d) and (e) and the overall operational
results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of such bodies, and
(j) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dil and/or Seanad
from time to time.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committee shall
consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments
(a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committee under
Standing Order 105, including the compliance of such acts with the
principle of subsidiarity,
(b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, including
programmes and guidelines prepared by the European Commission as a
basis of possible legislative action,
(c) non-legislative documents published by any EU institution in relation to
EU policy matters, and
(d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of the
relevant EU Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings.
(6) A sub-Committee stands established in respect of each Department within the
remit of the Select Committee to consider the matters outlined in paragraph (3),
and the following arrangements apply to such sub-Committees:
(a) the matters outlined in paragraph (3) which require referral to the Select
Committee by the Dil may be referred directly to such sub-Committees,
and
(b) each such sub-Committee has the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1)
and (2) and may report directly to the Dil, including by way of Message
under Standing Order 87.
(7) The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dil ireann,
shall also be the Chairman of the Select Committee and of any sub-Committee
or Committees standing established in respect of the Select Committee.
(8) The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee, for the
purposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take part in
proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments:
(a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in
Ireland, including Northern Ireland,
(b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, and
(c) at the invitation of the Committee, other Members of the European
Parliament.
65
b. Scope and Context of Activities of Committees (as derived from Standing

Orders [DSO 82; SSO 70]
(1) The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in such activities,
exercise such powers and discharge such functions as are specifically authorised
under its orders of reference and under Standing Orders.
(2) Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, and shall arise
only in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Dil and/or Seanad.
(3) It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills are referred that they
shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees shall meet to consider a Bill
on any given day, unless the Dil, after due notice given by the Chairman of the
Select Committee, waives this instruction on motion made by the Taoiseach pursuant
to Dil Standing Order 26. The Chairmen of Select Committees shall have
responsibility for compliance with this instruction.
(4) The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of
which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public
Accounts pursuant to Dil Standing Order 163 and/or the Comptroller and Auditor
General (Amendment) Act 1993.
(5) The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session or publishing
confidential information regarding any matter if so requested, for stated reasons
given in writing, by
(a) a member of the Government or a Minister of State, or
(b) the principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of a Department or
which is partly or wholly funded by the State or established or appointed
by a member of the Government or by the Oireachtas:
Provided that the Chairman may appeal any such request made to the Ceann
Comhairle / Cathaoirleach whose decision shall be final.
66

Report On Social Media July 2013 Website

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On Social Media July 2013 Website

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITHE AN OIREACHTAS

AN COMHCHOISTE UM IOMPAR AGUS CUMARSID

Faoi aghaidh a thabhairt ar fhs na Men Sisialta

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND

Addressing the Growth of Social Media

31TC 007 July 2013

3.1 Age restrictions................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Cyberbullying an international perspective ................................................... 16

3.4 Cyberbullying in Ireland ................................................................................... 17

3.5 Cyberbullying through text messages .............................................................. 19

3.6 Defamation ...................................................................................................... 21

4. Dealing with the misuse of the Internet and Social Media

4.1 Government initiatives ..................................................................................... 23

4.2 Industry profile and processes ......................................................................... 23

5. The legislative position in Ireland ........................................................................... 33

5.1 Difficulties in legislating in respect of social media ........................................... 33

5.2 Relevance of legislation currently in place ....................................................... 33

6. Initiatives at EU level ............................................................................................... 39

6.1 The Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol ............................ 39

6.2 The 2009 agreement with internet companies ................................................. 40

6.3 Safer Internet Programme (2009-2013) ........................................................... 40

7. Legislative position in other countries ...................................................................... 44

7.1 Laws in the United States of America .............................................................. 44

7.2 Laws in New Zealand ...................................................................................... 45

7.3 Laws in Australia ............................................................................................. 45

7.4 Laws in Canada............................................................................................... 46

7.5 Laws in Asia .................................................................................................... 46

7.6 Anonymity & real name verification laws.......................................................... 46

8. Possible actions and initiatives .............................................................................. 49

8.1 Educating children, teachers and parents ........................................................ 49

8.2 Schools programmes/actions .......................................................................... 51

8.3 More open communication between schools, hotlines and social

8.4 Public Awareness Campaigns ......................................................................... 54

8.5 Provide more resources to the Data Protection Commissioner and

8.6 Accessibility of the court system ...................................................................... 54

8.7 Provide training and guidance to Garda and the DPP..................................... 56

8.8 Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime ..................... 56

8.9 Provide more support for peer-to-peer learning projects .................................. 56

John OMahony T.D.

Membership of the Committee

Terry Brennan (FG)

1. Overview and Recommendations

Currently procedures dealing with cyberbullying focus on providing guidelines to young

Managing reports of social media misuse

Cyberbullying and suicide - separate issues

2. Background Social Media

Social media is a global phenomenon which is becoming increasingly mobile. A recent NM

Social media use among Irish adults

Social media use among Irish teenagers

Table 1: Basic internet usage among Irish teenagers

3. Misuse of Social Media

3.1 Age restrictions

3.2 Mental health implications for younger social media users

3.3 Cyberbullying an international perspective

Professor Mona O Moore describes cyber bullying as an extension of traditional bullying

However, research by Tokunaga (2009)15 draws some distinctions between traditional

Common cyberbullying tactics include:16

Pretending to be someone else when online;

3.4 Cyberbullying in Ireland

If employers fail to evolve with developments in technology and implement social

3.5 Cyberbullying through text messages

there is currently little empirical evidence that mandatory registration leads to a