Al-Alosi, Hadeel; Vidhata, Atul; Maurushat, Alana --- "The role of bystanders in cyberbullying" [2016] PrecedentAULA 6; (2016) 132 Precedent 20

THE ROLE OF BYSTANDERS IN CYBERBULLYING

By Hadeel Al-Alosi, Atul Vidhata and Dr Alana Maurushat

Cyberbullying has become a prominent issue in contemporary society. This is particularly due to the concerning number of youths who have been traumatised, sometimes to the point of committing suicide, as a result of being a victim of cyberbullying. There is now a plethora of literature focusing on the relationship between bullies and victims in cyberspace.^[1] Governments in Australia and throughout the world have also introduced initiatives to tackle the problem of cyberbullying.^[2] However, the existing literature and initiatives often fail to consider the role of bystanders in encouraging and magnifying the bullying simply by their passive presence or as agents who can potentially curtail cyberbullying incidents before they go too far.

This article sheds light on the significant role that bystanders play in cyberbullying, the reasons why they may not intervene, and whether a legal obligation should be placed on bystanders to be ‘good Samaritans’ in cyberspace. Although cyberbullying is not only an issue affecting school-aged youths, this article focuses on minors under 18 years of age.

OFFLINE VS ONLINE BULLYING

Before discussing whether a legal obligation should be placed on bystanders, it is first necessary to highlight the difference between bullying offline and online. Traditional offline bullying is aggression that is intentionally carried out by one or more individuals who repeatedly target a person or group of persons.^[3] The relationship between the bully and the victim is usually characterised by a power imbalance favouring the bully.^[4] The physical, emotional, and educational damage experienced by victims of bullying is well documented.^[5] Such victims are at a higher risk of suffering depression, substance abuse, and self-induced harm.^[6] School-aged victims are also likely to be absent from school, which accordingly affects their academic performance.^[7]

Cyberbullying is simply bullying on the internet or through digital communication devices, such as social networking sites, blogs, and instant messaging.^[8] It is similar to offline bullying in that it involves repetitive and intentional conduct on behalf of the bully which is intended to cause psychological distress to his or her targeted victim.^[9] Research has found that the same harmful consequences experienced as a result of offline bullying are also felt by victims of cyberbullying.^[10] However, unlike offline bullying, the use of technology means that cyberbullying can occur anonymously, at any time of the day, at any place, and be witnessed by a wide audience.^[11] Some observers suggest that the internet medium magnifies the harm because it allows bullies to hide behind the veil of anonymity, which increases their maliciousness.^[12] This anonymity is also said to encourage individuals to communicate more offensively than they would offline and to engage in more anti-social behaviour.^[13] Thus, it seems that the traditionally encouraged social norms or fear of reprisal that cause people to communicate respectfully and act civilly to one another in the ‘real world’ wither away in cyberspace.

Currently, there is no conclusive research highlighting the prevalence of cyberbullying in Australia.^[14] The literature suggests that it is anywhere from 9 per cent to 49 per cent within a school year.^[15] Although these rates seem significantly lower than offline bullying, the ubiquity of digital communication devices and the increased use of these devices by young people is believed to have led to an increase in the prevalence of cyberbullying.^[16] The media has reported that one in five children aged 8-17 experiences cyberbullying (Federal Dept of Communications); and that children aged 11-14 are the most vulnerable.^[17] Instances of cyberbullying can result in severe consequences for victims, including death. It has been described as a ‘silent killer of too many young people’^[18] and there are considerable instances of youths who have committed suicide as a result of cyberbullying in Australia and overseas.^[19] This has prompted several organisations, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, to advocate for greater governmental intervention to reduce the occurrence, or mitigate the severity, of both offline and online bullying.^[20] It has also led to government-funded cyberbullying initiatives,^[21] such as the establishment of the Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner in July 2015, which purports to protect ‘Australian children when they experience cyberbullying by administering a complaints scheme and deals with complaints about prohibited online content’.^[22] The focus of these initiatives, as well as most of the literature concerned with cyberbullying, has been on the victim and the bully. Less focus has been given to the significant role of bystanders in encouraging bullying by their mere passive presence as witnesses. For example, the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety, which was established by the Australian Parliament in 2010 to inquire into and report on cyberbullying in Australia, noted that cyberbullying could be dealt with under existing criminal laws. This included Commonwealth legislation relating to the misuse of telecommunications, which makes it an offence to use a carriage service in an online environment to menace, harass, threaten or cause harm to a person.^[23] However, the Committee did not consider the possible role of bystanders once they had witnessed victims of cyberbullying being subject to menacing, harassing or threatening conduct. Bystanders are potentially complicit in the actions of a cyberbully if they do not intervene when it becomes arguably necessary or obvious to do so. However, by not considering their role at all, the potential for bystanders to make positive changes or take positive actions in such situations is sidelined. This is arguably why there should be a defined responsibility. Any such measure is, of course, a matter of degree, and is discussed below.

THE ‘BYSTANDER EFFECT’

Bystanders are generally individuals who observe an act of violence or problematic behaviour, but who are not its direct perpetrator or victim.^[24] Bystanders may not to intervene for a range of reasons. One significant reason is the ‘bystander effect’, which describes the situation where individuals in crowds choose not to act, thereby reducing the likelihood that other witnesses will intervene.^[25] This may be because the individual feels that someone else will intervene; that he or she has no responsibility to assist, especially where they do not personally know the victim; because, as highlighted by the research on crowds, people who perceive their identity to be anonymous are less likely to intervene; and the larger the number of bystanders to witness an event, the more their sense of responsibility is diffused.^[26]In large crowds where no one is taking action to intervene, some individuals and even the victims themselves may believe that the bully’s actions towards the victim is acceptable or condoned by the group. This inferred consensus by non-intervention makes bystanders, at any point of the incident if there is a sufficient gathering, more reluctant to act against the apparent consensus.^[27] Similarly, an online bystander is capable of demonstrating several if not all of these characteristics in an online environment.^[28] There are some major differences between online and offline bystanders:

• the number of people who may witness an incident;

• the number of those who can be determined to have witnessed it;

• a stronger sense of disassociation; and

• online bystanders can be considered to have been present at distinctly different parts of an incident rather than for its entire duration.^[29]

However, it is important to note that the variety of online platforms and interactions available makes the definition of online bystanders very flexible.

In Australia, there is generally no legal duty on bystanders to rescue a person in peril in the offline environment.^[30] The law does, however, encourage bystanders to assist others in peril under ‘good Samaritans’ laws by limiting the liability of those who intervene in respect of any act or omission done or made during an emergency when assisting a person.^[31] For example, under New South Wales legislation, a ‘good Samaritan’ is defined as someone who ‘in good faith and without expectation of payment or other reward, comes to the assistance of a person who is apparently injured or at risk of being injured’.^[32] The intention of ‘good Samaritan’ provisions is to encourage bystanders to act in circumstances where another is in need.^[33] Although good Samaritan laws seem to be concerned with medical emergencies that occur in the real world, the rationale can be extended to protecting online victims.^[34] For example, if one witnessed cyberbullying that was encouraging someone to take their life, what types of bystander intervention might be appropriate? One intervention may be simply to encourage the person not to commit suicide. A further extension might have the bystander contact a suicide hotline or the police to have them intervene. An even further extension might be for the bystander to perform a DDoS attack on the IP address of those encouraging the suicide, thereby interrupting the ability of the bully to continue to encourage the suicide.

Good Samaritan laws do not currently impose a duty to intervene in Australia; they merely limit liability of the bystander for their intervention. Given the unique nature of cyberbullying and the magnified harm that occurs when bullies harass their victims in front of a large passive audience, should good Samaritan laws be extended to the online environment and, if they are, should these laws move towards a duty to intervene? Is it appropriate to extend similar expectations to witnesses in the online environment to assist cyberbullying victims? As mentioned, good Samaritan laws currently do not impose a duty to intervene and, combined with the natural disengagement characteristic of the online environment, may require a more substantial form of motivation for bystanders to intervene in a cyberbullying act.

SHOULD THERE BE A DUTY TO INTERVENE IN CASES OF CYBERBULLYING?

It is inevitable that enacting any such legislation placing a legal duty to intervene on online users who witness instances of cyberbullying would attract controversy and conflicting views. Intervention could take a number of forms including contacting police, the website or forum (for example, Snapchat, Facebook, School) or the eSafety Commission, to more substantial interventions with DDoS attacks or blocking mechanisms, or installing software on to the bully’s system to determine their identity. Clearly, the more substantial forms of intervention present a number of contentious issues, which could result in even further complications and damage. Any legislation dealing with intervention by bystanders themselves rather than the platforms they use would likely be more successful if limited to requiring only a reporting obligation, owing to both the aforementioned tendency to disengagement online and the fact that it would impose only a minimum onus on the individualism and privacy prized online.

An effective intervention might require the obligatory participation of bystanders in a situation where actively getting involved may not be a natural response.^[35] In societies that value individualism, privacy, and autonomy, imposing an obligatory duty to report the bullying may be conceived as interfering in the business of others, particularly in difficult and aggravating instances.^[36] The principle of individualism is reflected in the common law, which has traditionally rejected punishing individuals for omissions.^[37] This ‘right to be left alone’,^[38] while admirable, fails to take into consideration the way individuals operate in society and the utilitarian benefits to society in imposing positive obligations on individuals.^[39] The 1964 Genovese murder case, in which a young woman was stabbed in front approximately 38 witnesses, all of whom failed to come to her assistance, led to the phenomenon known as ‘the Genovese syndrome’ – the group psychology of people living in an urban area to become apathetic and desensitised to those in their community.^[40] Importantly, this case triggered debate about whether in certain situations individuals should be legally required to respond to the victimisation of another by reporting the incident.

The utilitarian benefits of a duty to intervene may also apply in the online environment. This is because cyberbullying is not merely a relationship between two parties, but rather a communal one that affects society as a whole.^[41] Benzmiller seems to support this view, proposing the enactment of ‘bad Samaritan’ laws that penalise bystanders who fail to report serious cyberbullying which threatens another person’s life or wellbeing to the appropriate authorities.^[42] While Benzmiller is not clear on who the appropriate authorities might be, they might include the hosting website's administrator, dedicated online safety entities like the eSafety commissioner, or perhaps even the police in serious instances. Although this goes against the general principle of the criminal law that a person should be blamed only for their actions, not their omissions, Benzmiller likens the very presence of bystanders in cases involving cyberbullying to an ‘act’ in the sense that their failure to act implicitly encourages the bully.^[43] According to Benzmiller, the bystanders’ digital footprint can be traced.^[44] For example, this proposed duty would arise only when there is evidence of the witness’s presence in the context of a cyberbullying incident at a point when they could have intervened to the benefit of the victim. To prove this possibility and the resulting responsibility to intervene, the bystander’s presence at the relevant times would need to be ascertained by the platform’s record, or by visible interactions on that online platform. Examples might include posts on social media or even recorded chats on Skype referring to the incident, even acknowledging the severity of the bullying, but where there is no evidence of any involvement when such an action could have been taken. Such a failure to report might be punishable by fine, enrolment in educational programs or removal from the electronic medium.^[45]

While Benzmiller’s suggestion is plausible, there are several issues with putting this approach into practice. She addresses some of the problematic enforcement issues of ‘bad Samaritan’ laws in cyberspace, but nevertheless concludes that criminal sanctions for bystanders should be implemented. However, she fails to address several other issues with imposing a legal duty on bystanders to report cyberbullying. For example, how much information can a website host be compelled to disclose about a person's online movements to prove that they are witnesses? Proving that a person was a witness to an event could require information about their browsing history, details about sites they subscribe to, or online transactional history, thus raising serious privacy concerns. Website hosts may also be reluctant to disclose user’s details for fear of losing customers. At the same time, many individuals may avoid using platforms that they do not trust to protect their anonymity.^[46]

Another issue in imposing a duty to intervene is the threshold question of how severe the bullying must be before a bystander is obliged to intervene. Benzmiller suggested a reasonableness test that expects witnesses to report bullying behavior if he or she ‘knows or reasonably believes that the victim of cyberbullying might harm herself’.^[47] However, the reasonable test is inherently vague and even more difficult to apply to youths in cyberspace. Does it take into consideration the age of the bystander? If so, what are the attributes of a reasonable 15 year old? Is it different from a 16 year old? At what point in time should a bystander be reasonably expected to intervene? Is it only after making enquiries into the relationship between the perceived bully and victim? Or should it be simply upon viewing an uncivil comment? The latter would clearly be inappropriate, given the fact that the bystander may lack knowledge of the context of the relationship, and because it may be extremely difficult to objectively distinguish bullying from playful banter.^[48]

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to offer all the possible solutions to remedy the ‘bystander effect’, it is evident that while legal entities might benefit from involving bystanders, non-legal mechanisms would be more feasible in encouraging bystanders to intervene. For example, there should be greater focus on the role of bystanders in the current initiatives aiming at preventing cyberbullying. Minors and adults alike should be informed about the benefits of being a good Samaritan and coming to the assistance of cyberbullying victims. As Langos suggests, the most effective way to communicate this message is by educating online users directly on certain platforms where cyberbullying is prevalent.^[49] Other jurisdictions, such as China, have cyber police icons that appear when one connects to the internet reminding people to practise safe online activities. The icons are Chacha and Jingjing, as shown below.

When one clicks on the image one can also report incidences, as well as ask questions about the legality of their actions. An eSafety reporting icon may be an interesting idea for social media sites but, again, there will always be issues with anything measures that threaten to interfere with freedom of expression and privacy.

CONCLUSION

Given the serious consequences of cyberbullying, a collaborative approach is clearly required to reduce its prevalence and harmful effects, and to offer specific and general deterrence to potential cyberbullies. Focusing only on the bully and the victim fails to consider those who are often in the best position to influence cyberbullying: the online companies such as social media, and the bystanders.^[50] We cannot rely on bystanders’ sense of moral obligation to intervene in order to overcome their reluctance to assist victims of cyberbullying. At the same time, imposing a legal obligation on bystanders to be good Samaritans and penalties for being a bad Samaritan appear unfeasible. The challenge is therefore to develop a more holistic approach that considers the interaction between bullies, victims, and bystanders in cyberspace. Ideally, such an approach would strike a balance between respecting individuals’ right to be ‘left alone’,^[51] while at the same time encouraging individuals to be good Samaritans by coming to the aid of victims in cyberspace. Equally plausible is requiring technology companies to implement more holistic approaches to cyberbullying. The new Australian eSafety Commissioner’s role is to communicate directly with such technology companies to implement negotiated solutions to assist in online matters such as cyberbullying. This is a positive step forward.

Hadeel Al-Alosi is a Sessional Lecturer and PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, UNSW. EMAIL [e-mail]. Atul Vidhata is a student intern with the Cyberspace Law and Policy Community, UNSW. EMAIL [e-mail]. Alana Maurushat is Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UNSW; Co-Director Cyberspace Law and Policy Community, UNSW; Key Researcher, Law and Policy, CRCD2D; Senior Research Fellow, the Australian Cybersecurity Centre, UNSW Canberra. EMAIL [e-mail].

---

^[1] Marilyn Campbell, ‘Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise?’ (2005) 15(1) Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 68-76; Donna Cross et al, ‘Cyberbullying in Australia: Is school context related to cyberbullying behaviour?’ Child Health promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Australia, (2009). Accessed 21 November 2015, <http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/532772/Cyberbullying_in_Australia-donna-cross.pdf>; Sameer Hinduja, Justin Patchin, ‘Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Suicide’ (2010) 14 International Academy for Suicide Research 206-21; Ilan Katz, et al, ‘Research on youth exposure to, and management of, cyberbullying incidents in Australia: Synthesis Report’, UNSW Social Policy Research Centre (June 2014). Accessed 21 November 2015, <https://www.communications.gov.au/file/1413/download?token=V2qQoHRG>.

^[2] Australian Government: Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner <https://esafety.gov.au/education-resources>; Australian Cybercrime Online reporting Network <http://www.acorn.gov.au/what-is-cybercrime/cyber-bullying/> Canada: Get Cyber Safe <http://www.getcybersafe.gc.ca/index-eng.aspx> .

^[3] Julian Dooley, Jacek Pyzalski, Donna Cross, ‘Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review’, Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, (2009). Accessed 21 November 2015, <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/49281627_Cyberbullying_Versus_Face-to-Face_Bullying_A_Theoretical_and_Conceptual_Review> .

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ken Rigby, ‘What Harm Does Bullying do?’ Children and Crime: Victims and Offenders Conference Australian institute of Criminology (Brisbane, 1999). Accessed 29 December 2015 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Rigby/publication/242084964_WHAT_HARM_DOES_BULLYING_DO_/links/0deec52e73576a820f000000.pdf.> Evelyn Field, ‘Victims of Bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder’, presented at the Restoration for Victims of Crime Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, Melbourne, Victoria, (September 1999). Accessed 21 November 2015 <http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/rvc/field.pdf>; Michael Carr-Gregg, Ramesh Manocha, ‘Bullying: effects, prevalance and strategies for detection’, (2011) Australian Family Law Physician vol. 40 issue 3. Found at <http://earlytraumagrief.anu.edu.au/files/201103carrgregg.pdf> .

^[6] Heather Benzmiller, ‘The Cyber-Samaritans: Exploring Criminal Liability for the “Innocent” Bystanders of Cyberbullying’ (2013), 107(2) Northwestern University Law Review; Michele L Ybarra and Kimberly J Mitchell, ‘Youth Engaging in Online Harassment: Associations with Caregiver-Child Relationships, Internet Use, and Personal Characteristics’, University of New Hampshire, 11 March 2004. Accessed 22 November 2015 <http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV63.pdf> Phillip T Slee, ‘Peer victimisation and its relationship to depression among Australian Primary School students’, (1995) 18 Elsevier 1.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Darby Dickerson, ‘Cyberbullies on Campus’, (2005) 37(1) University of Toledo Law Review 51.

^[9] Ibid; Kaveri Subrahmanyam and David Smahel, Digital Youth: The role of Media in Development, (2011) Springer, NY at 3; Phillip T Slee and David C Ford, ‘Bullying is a serious issue – it is a crime’, (1999) 4(1) Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law and Education 23-39.

^[10] Benzmiller, above n 6, at p932.

^[11]Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Cyberbullying, human rights and bystanders’, (December 2010). Accessed 22 November 2015 <https://bullying.humanrights.gov.au/cyberbullying-human-rights-and-bystanders>.

^[12]Dickerson, above n 8, at 56; Benzmiller, above n 6, at 933; Ruogu Kang, Stephanie Brown and Sara Kiesler, ‘Why Do People Seek Anonymity on the Internet? Informing policy and design’, Carnegie Mellon University, 2 May 2013. Accessed 22 November 2015<https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kiesler/publications/2013/why-people-seek-anonymity-internet-policy-design.pdf>.

^[13]Benzmiller, above n 6, at p934.

^[14] Megan Price and John Dalgeish, (2010) ‘Cyberbullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies – as told by Australian young people; summary of the research findings’, BoysTown at 1. Accessed 22 November 2015 <https://www.boystown.com.au/downloads/rep/BT-Research-Report-Cyberbullying.pdf>; Ilan Katz, Matthew Keeley, Barbara Spears, Carmel Taddeo, Teresa Swirski and Shona Bates (2014), Research on Youth Exposure to, and Management of, Cyber-Bullying Incidents in Australia: Synthesis Report, prepared for Australian Government Department of Communications, at 2.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Price et al, above n 14; Katz et al, above n 14.

^[17] Cossima Marriner, ‘Cyber Bullies come out to play in the Summer Holidays’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 December 2015. Accessed 29 December 2015 <http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyber-bullies-come-out-to-play-in-the-school-holidays-20151204-glffas.html> .

^[18] F Cleland, (2015), ‘Open Drum: cyber bullying claimed our Jessica’, ABC News, 11 February 2015. Accessed 24 November 2015 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-11/cleland-open-drum:-cyber-bullying-claimed-our-jessica/6083084> .

^[19] For example, see Kathleen Donaghey, ‘Cyberbullying victim Danii Sanders let down by authorities, say parents’, The Sunday Mail (Online), 24 July 2011: <http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cyber-bullying-victim-dannii-sanders-let-down-by-mental-health-system-say-parents/story-e6freoof-1226100469604> Natalie O’Brien, ‘Charlotte Dawson found dead’, The Sydney Morning Herald (Online), 22 February 2014: <http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/charlotte-dawson-found-dead-20140222-338j6.html>; Mazoe Ford, ‘Cyberbullying: Father crusades to stop bullies after daughter’s suicide following Facebook tirade’, ABC News (Online), 18 August 2015: <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-17/father-crusades-to-stop-cyber-bullies-after-daughter's-suicide/6703668>; Author Unknown, ‘Dutch authorities will not pursue charges against accused in Amanda Todd case’, CTV News (Online), 27 October 2015: <http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dutch-authorities-will-not-pursue-charges-against-accused-in-amanda-todd-case-1.2629764>; Author Unknown, ‘Schoolgirl Sheniz Erkan takes own life after Facebook torment’, News.com, 12 January 2012: <http://www.news.com.au/national/torment-too-much-for-teen/story-e6frfkvr-1226242267322>.

^[20] G Stolz, and T Chilcott, ‘13 child suicides in three years prompt call for action as bullying victims take their own lives’, The Courier Mail, 24 May 2013. Accessed 24 November 2015 <http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/child-suicides-in-three-years-prompt-call-for-action-as-bullying-victims-take-their-own-lives/story-e6freoof-1226649545952> Author Unknown, ‘Charlotte’s Law: Petition for Tougher Cyber Bullying Legislation’, TimeBase, 7 April 2014: <http://www.timebase.com.au/news/2014/AT187-article.html> Sue Lanin, ‘Cyber Bullying: Government crackdown to target social media sites’, ABC News, 3 December 2014: <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-03/government-plans-cyber-bullying-crackdown/5935560>.

^[21] Neale Burgess, ‘Schools sign up to government-funded cyberbullying initiative’, Neale Burgess, 16 November 2011. Accessed 23 November 2015 <http://www.nealeburgess.com.au/NealesBlog/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/177/Schools-sign-up-to-government-funded-cyberbullying-initiative.aspx> .

^[22] Australian Government, Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, ‘Role of the Office’, (date unknown) <https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-the-office/role-of-the-office>.

^[23] Parliament of Australia, Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety, High Wire Act: Cyber Safety Interim Report (December 2011) at 11.9: <http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jscc/report.htm> .

^[24] A Powell, ‘Review of bystander approaches in support of preventing violence against women’, (2011) Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) at 8.

^[25] Marissa Calligeros, ‘The “bystander effect”: Would you intervene if a person was being attacked on public transport?’ The Age Victoria, 27 May 2015. Accessed 26 November 2015 <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-bystander-effect-would-you-intervene-if-a-person-was-being-attacked-on-public-transport-20150527-ghas47.html>.

^[26] Dickerson, above n 8, at 63; Calligeros, above n 25.

^[27] Dickerson, above n 8, at 63.

^[28] Price et al, above n 14.

^[29] Ibid.

^[30] The exception to this would be the Northern Territory, where persons are required by statute law to provide assistance to another in need: Criminal Code of the Northern Territory of Australia (1983), s155.

^[31] Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s5; Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss55-58; Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC), ss31A - 31D; Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), ss5AB - 5AE; Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s74; Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD), s27A; Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act (NT) s8; Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) ss35A - 35C.

^[32] Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s56.

^[33] Michael Eburn, ‘Good Samaritan legislation and scope of practice’, Australian Emergency Law, 27 March 2015: <https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/>.

^[34] Ibid; Nicole Dixon, ‘ Protection for Good Samaritans under the Civil Liability (Good Samaritan) Amendment Bill 2007 (Qld)’ (Research Paper No. 9, Queensland Parliamentary Library, QLD, 2007) at 8; Michael Eburn, ‘Volunteers and Good Samaritans’ (2004), The Australian National University <https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiHyoKdqa3JAhWEJ6YKHT7zD9sQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.anu.edu.au%2Fsites%2Fall%2Ffiles%2Fusers%2Fu4810180%2Fcivil_liability_2010.doc&usg=AFQjCNHPTwLlGVG8rJgvSD0Ls9iMfyfhMw&sig2=G71-AigEA1bMZrX38RVk9w>.

^[35] Author Unknown, ’Cyberbullying Laws: Australia cracks down on cyberbullying’, NoBullying.com, 14 April 2015. Accessed 23 November 2015 http://nobullying.com/cyberbullying-laws-australia/.

^[36] Benzmiller, above n 6, at 946.

^[37] Ibid; John Kleinig, ‘Criminal liability for failures to act’, University of New York, (1986): <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3864&context=lcp>.

^[38] Benzmiller, above n 6, at 946.

^[39] Ibid.

^[40] Maureen Dowd, ‘20 years after the murder of Kitty Genovese, the question remains: Why?’, The New York Times, 12 March 1984. Accessed 23 November 2015 <http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/12/nyregion/20-years-after-the-murder-of-kitty-genovese-the-question-remains-why.html> .

^[41]Adrienne N Kitchen, ‘The Need to Criminalize Revenge Porn: How a Law Protecting Victims Can Avoid Running Afoul of the First Amendment’, (2015) 90 Chicago-Kent Law Review 247.

^[42] Benzmiller, above n 6, at p952.

^[43] Ibid.

^[44] Ibid.

^[45] Ibid.

^[46] Kang et al, above n 12.

^[47] Benzmiller, above n 6, at p954.

^[48] See D Temkin, ‘Playful Banter or Bullying – Whose Perception’, Huffington Post, 19 September 2014. Accessed 25 November 2015 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-temkin/playful-banter-or-bullyin_b_5845348.html?ir=Australia> Author Unknown, ‘The Difference Between Teasing and Bullying’, (2015), PREVNet. Accessed 25 November 2015 <http://www.prevnet.ca/bullying/educators/the-difference-between-teasing-and-bullying> Jennifer Sian Jeffrey, ‘Contextual Influences on the Perception of Bullying Behaviours for Youth in New Zealand’, Victoria University of Wellington (2015). Accessed 25 November 2015 <http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/4709/thesis.pdf?sequence=1> .

^[49] Benzmiller, above n 6, at p958.

^[50] Parliament of Australia, Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety, see n 23, at 14.8.

^[51] Benzmiller, above n 6, at p946.

---