DISTRESS SOMEONE ON FACEBOOK, GO TO JAIL IN SVG!

In the Associate Press news article of 29th June, 2013, a similar headline was used to identify the
threats to free speech of the notorious sections 6 and 16 of the then Electronic Crimes Act 2013
of Grenada. After much pressure, these sections were repealed in an amendment in 2014. Three
years later as St. Vincent and the Grenadines parliament reviews its Cybercrime Bill 2016, we
find that a person may go to jail for publications in cyberspace which another claims causes them
distress etc. While I do not oppose every aspect of the bill, the threats to free online speech and
press which clause 16 constitutes must be exposed!
Clause 16 of the bill which generally creates the offence of Harassment using means of
Electronic Communication criminalizes cyberbullying. It says A person who uses a computer
system to cyberbully, intentionally or recklessly, another person commits an offence. A
computer system takes in any device used to produce electronic data therefore this will include
Android phones, tablets and other computer typed devices. Furthermore, it will involve the use
of social media such as Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, Snapchat, Instagram and so on. Now
consider how cyberbullying is defined: For the purpose of this section, cyberbully means to
use a computer system repeatedly or continuously to convey information which causes
(a) fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other harm to another person; or
(b) detriment to another persons health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or
reputation.
There is no definition whatsoever of the vague and subjective words used in the bill to define
cyberbullying. Who determines what kind of information causes intimidation, humiliation,
distress, detriment to another persons self-esteem etc.? Obviously it will be the person who
is bringing the claim. They could be lying or even seeking revenge on an opponent. Also, it will
be left up to the arbitrary feelings of a police officer, the prosecution and a magistrate or judge,
in an imperfect world where such persons may be influenced wrongly by partisan politics or
even desire for revenge. Since these terms may mean different things for different persons, then
some will be criminalized for the same publications for which others will go free because of
these different interpretations. There will therefore be no equality of all before the law. The
subsection is poorly drafted, lacking legal certainty and fails to guide Vincentians into certainty
on how they ought to regulate their behaviour. It is wide and will criminalize legitimate
publication which constitutes even the truth. This is an unconstitutional provision and no sitting
government Minister and Senator with good conscience should be proud to support such atrocity
against human rights.
Imagine a 17 year old Facebook user posts a satirical meme, criticizing a government minister
for inappropriate public behaviour. One online definition says that satire is the use of humour,
irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in
the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. The meme is shared, even on
whatsapp. The minister is bombarded with more criticisms and ridicule to the point where he
claims it causes him DISTRESS. This minister will be able to use this portion of clause 16 to
complain that the 17 year olds electronic communication harassed him. The child has used his
freedom of conscience, opinion, choice, thought and belief to create this statement and used his

freedom of speech and expression, using the online press of Facebook to disseminate it. Clause
16 goes against these God-given and constitutional freedoms of this youth. If a conviction is
secured against him he may be fined up to two hundred thousand (EC$200,000) or go to jail for
up to 5 years or both, as the penalties show. Why? For causing distress to a government minister,
although he merely posted the truth on Facebook! This can easily happen between any two
persons, children included, who may posts unpleasant things about each other online. People will
be encouraged to engage the courts with contentious matters, wanting to deal with their
opponents for things published against them on Facebook or whatsapp. They merely have to
claim it caused them distress, humiliation and or all the other vague and subjective terms
above. This is ludicrous, vexing, backward and non-progressive. It is a thin-skinned law and will
breed thin-skinned attitudes in society. Our drafters and legislators in parliament must
understand that you cannot legislate to limit constitutionally free speech, just because you wish
to comfort hurt feelings. Besides, can the people of this Country bring claims against the mover
of this bill for distressing us and intimidating us into self-censorship by the obviously
unconstitutional, anti-free speech nature of clause 16 of this bill? Hmmm.
I have, to no avail, advised the select committee of the House of Parliament that the only
publication of information which should constitute a criminal offence of cyberbullying (if you
wish to call it that) should be publication which constitutes credible threats of violence to a
person and or threats to destroy or damage property (threats well established). Published
information on Facebook which harasses a person because they say it causes them distress is not
criminal and no one should go to jail or get a criminal record for that! And do not tell me we
must wait for evidence in court to determine what is distressing. Draft the law properly now and
do not open the way for bombarding the police and the courts with nonsense! Government must
have respect for inalienable rights and freedoms of people and remove the cyberbullying offence
in the cybercrime bill 2016. It is unjust and destructive to free speech, is a thin-skinned offence
and will breed a thin-skinned, intolerant, contentious and confusion-filled society. People,
whether supporters or opponents of the government, simply do not elect governments to jail
them for speech which some do not welcome! This is an O.O.P.LEG.-an Out Of Place
Legislation. Delete it!

Anesia O. Baptiste