DEFAMATION LAW IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET: YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVES Defamation Law in the Internet Age June 2017 Commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario Prepared by Jane Bailey Valerie Steeves The LCO commissioned this paper to provide background research for its Defamation Law in the Internet Age project. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the LCO. DEFAMATION LAW IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET: YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVES Prepared by: Jane Bailey1 and Valerie Steeves2 Prepared for: Law Commission of Ontario Final Report 15 June 2017 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 10 I. THE MEANING AND VALUE OF REPUTATION .............................................................................. 13 A. Understanding Online Reputation ..................................................................................................... 13 B. Creating an Online Reputation ............................................................................................................ 18 C. Avoiding Reputational Harm................................................................................................................ 21 D. Making Sense of Other People’s Reputations ................................................................................ 26 E. The Value of Private Socio-technical Spaces .................................................................................. 30 II. REPUTATIONAL HARM .......................................................................................................................... 32 A. True Stories ................................................................................................................................................ 32 B. False Stories ................................................................................................................................................ 35 C. Mixed True and False Stories/Opinions .......................................................................................... 36 D. Group-based Hate .................................................................................................................................... 38 E. Throwing Shade ........................................................................................................................................ 39 F. Truth vs. Falsity: The Blurry Line ....................................................................................................... 40 G. Relationship Between Truth, Falsity and Degree of Harm ....................................................... 43 III. RESOLUTIONS............................................................................................................................................ 46 A. Interpersonal/Community-based Responses ............................................................................... 46 B. Social Media Platform Responses ...................................................................................................... 51 C. School-based Responses ........................................................................................................................ 55 D. Legal Responses ........................................................................................................................................ 61 1. Law as a last resort ............................................................................................................................. 62 2. Civil litigation ........................................................................................................................................ 66 3. Criminal prosecution ........................................................................................................................... 73 IV. FREE EXPRESSION, PRIVACY AND ANONYMITY IN AN ONLINE WORLD ..................... 74 A. Free Expression ........................................................................................................................................ 74 B. Privacy .......................................................................................................................................................... 78 C. Anonymity ................................................................................................................................................... 81 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 92 APPENDIX A - METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 96 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to Suzie Dunn, Grace Foran, Sarah Heath (Project Manager, The eQuality Project), Maria- Cristina Cavicchia, and Briana Day, for all of their work and support in completing this report. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on interviews that were conducted with 20 youth between the ages of 15 and 21 in Ontario during the winter of 2017. The purpose of the interviews was to explore young people’s attitudes toward and experiences with online defamation, reputation, anonymity, including their opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of existing mechanisms for addressing online defamation3. Reputation: Judging and Being Judged Participants repeatedly emphasized the blurry, if not indistinguishable line, between online and offline spaces. At the same time, they distinguished real world reputations (which are rooted in social relationships with others) from online reputations (which are self-consciously constructed in order to satisfy the needs of the particular platforms that house their content). They accordingly felt that they had a number of reputations that were determined by the context of the sites of interaction. However, they recognized that their online reputations could affect the way that they were judged both online and offline, and they accordingly took a number of measures to maintain their reputations. Prominent among these measures was controlling an element of privacy in their online interactions (in the form of control over the information and audience) by using different platforms or different elements of platforms for different purposes. By doing so they represented themselves in different ways for different audiences. They were also aware that others’ online postings about them could also affect their reputations. A number of them felt that it would be unfair for future employers to judge 4 them based on what was posted about them online because online information can so easily be taken out of context. Law reform take-away: In an increasingly seamlessly integrated online/offline world, reputations can be established or broken by both online and offline content. In the online context, maintaining control over the information and audience can be challenging. Consequently, legal privacy protections are intimately connected to reputation creation, maintenance and protection. Reputational Harm: Truth and Falsity Participants described numerous instances in which their reputations or the reputation of others had been harmed by what others posted about them online. In a great many cases, however, the reputational harm derived not from the posting of a false statement, but from the posting of either a true statement or a non-consensual disclosure where the truth of the contents of the disclosure was not in dispute (e.g. intimate images or personal information). Further, their opinion of others emanated, at least to some degree, from what was posted online about those others even though they recognized that it is difficult to discern truth from falsity or fact from opinion. Participants also expressed serious concern about the reputational harm experienced by members of vulnerable groups, such as Muslims and racialized persons that are targeted by online hate. 5 Law reform take-away: In an online world characterized by misinformation, alternative facts, non-consensual disclosures of personal information and images, and group-based hate, defamation law’s focuses on falsity and individual reputation, and its distinction between opinion and fact may weaken its contribution to reputational protection. Resolutions Participants viewed law (whether civil or criminal) as a last resort for dealing with online reputational attacks. Instead, they described a litany of other approaches as those they would try first, including: individual/community-based responses; social media platform reporting; and school-based responses. However, many participants expressed dissatisfaction with the non-transparency and unpredictability of results from reporting to social media platforms and with the lack of a whole school approach to reputational attacks and harm. Nonetheless, most felt options such as these were more accessible, understandable, and affordable, and less likely to blow things out of proportion than were legal options. Law reform take-away – In an online/offline world where numerous resources exist for dealing with online