We are tasked with discussing the ramifications of one of the saddest stories humanity has to offer. A young girl, bullied, picked on, shamed, and made to feel alone and outside takes her own life after callous actions by those around her. We are asked to consider the story of Amanda Todd, her cyberbully, and a hacking group that sought to avenge her death and ended up harming yet another person. There is no rainbow at the end of this story, just defamation, incarceration, and death. If there is to be a silver lining it would be that those of us discussing the sad tale of Amanda Todd may be better prepared to help those around us who may be in a similar situation to hers.
Our first question is whether or not we believe that Amanda’s Harasser, Aydin Coban, should be held accountable for Amanda’s suicide. For this author, that is a difficult question. Without a doubt, Aydin Coban was a primary contributing factor to Amanda’s heartbreak, exile, and shaming. His actions, which he targeted at not just Todd but also dozens of others lead to convictions in the Netherlands for Fraud and Blackmail via the Internet, resulting in a nearly 11-year sentence. “The 10-year, eight-month sentence handed down to Aydin Coban in the Netherlands is the maximum possible punishment under Dutch law. Mr. Coban, 38, was convicted of fraud and blackmail via the Internet relating to the online harassment of 34 girls and five men. “(Woo) As Todd was a Canadian Citizen, her government is also seeking justice for her. “Coban was approved to be extradited to Canada from the Netherlands in April. The RCMP has charged him with extortion, importing or distributing child pornography, possessing child pornography and child luring. (CTV) It is clear that the legal systems of both The Netherlands and Canada have ways of holding Coban accountable for his actions online.
What isn’t clear about the question at hand is whether Coban should be held accountable for Todd’s suicide. While Coban’s actions were reprehensible and likely triggered a domino effect that lead to Todd’s suicide, Coban himself did not kill Todd. Neither country is seeking to hold him accountable via the charges relating to death – murder or manslaughter. In Todd’s heart-wrenching video, she talks not only of Coban, but also of an “old guy friend” that used her and bullied her – actions separate and apart from Coban’s. (YouTube) In a court of law, who is to say that it wasn’t this offline interaction, and not Coban’s that was Todd’s breaking point? One could make a strong argument that what this boy did was enabled or empowered by Coban’s actions, but Coban could not reasonably be held responsible for that action.
Merriam-Webster defines “suicide” as “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally.” By definition, a suicide is voluntary, and therefore another individual cannot be held responsible for that action. To hold an outside party accountable for a suicide is to change the act into a homicide. While this author thinks that Coban should be held accountable for his actions, and face severe consequences, it would be hard to convince a jury that he committed homicide with Todd’s death. As Ghandi is widely-attributed to have said “an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” While it may offer a righteous moment to hold Coban accountable for Todd’s suicide, it is taking the charges a step too far.
Our next question is whether this crime should be seen as corruption of a minor, even though it took place entirely online. To that, this author answers with a resounding yes. As Todd’s case illustrates so clearly, online actions have offline consequences. While Coban never physically touched Todd, he negatively impacted her life as a result of a sexual interaction that would have been illegal in person. The photographs he took and distributed are in themselves crimes of child pornography, and for those he is directly responsible. In the end, a young girl ended up harassed so much that she moved schools several times and later committed suicide to end a series of events she claimed started with his distribution of those pictures. That it happened online does not change the intent or impact of the crime as it concerns this author.
Unfortunately, this tragic story doesn’t end with Coban’s conviction. The hacking group “Anonymous” sought to avenge Todd’s death by exposing the person believed to have perpetrated the heinous acts against Todd. In an act of cyber-vigilantism, they released information targeting the wrong individual, leading to death threats. In this case, we must look to the aforementioned Ghandi quote as well as why we have due process in modern legal systems. Mob rule, whether virtual or in the town square, seldom concerns itself with proof and more with vengeance. What’s correct doesn’t matter as much as feeling “right”, and that attitude hurts innocent people. For this author, Anonymous’ actions may have had started with a seed of noble intent, but ended with vigilantism, which cannot be condoned. If Anonymous wanted to be helpful and just, they could put their skills to use in assisting law enforcement to track down perpetrators such as Coban. Such an approach would afford due process and proper justice, rather than accidentally fingering the wrong individual and forcing that person to deal with the negative outcomes.
Our final task today is to discuss how we can take the lessons learned about the severity of online bullying and the potentially grim end results and put them to a beneficial end. With both cyber-bullying and adolescent suicide being so prevalent (Hinduja & Patchin), and youth so vulnerable, what can be done in the schools to help mitigate this pandemic threat to our children? This author, like so many, was the subject of bullying growing up. While at the time it seemed as if the world was dark and small, it is only in hindsight that one can see that what was a major ordeal then is meaningless now. Without formal psychological or counseling training, it’s hard to suggest a policy to counsel and prevent cyberbullying, but what would make the most sense to this author would be honest, open conversation. So many of the problems faced by individuals of any age stem from insecurity. We feel “less than”, or “other than”, or “outside.” Bullies feel this and victimize in an attempt to regain power over something, or someone in their sphere of influence. The shame and humiliation either cause or deepen the feelings of those being bullied. The only thing that can reverse that is empathy, and so this author suggests a policy that would:
1. Include all students, not just those thought to be bullied or bully.
2. Honestly and openly discuss how so many people share their same feelings, and that they’re not alone.
3. Involve small group work where students could get to know each other in a safe environment.
4. Discuss the severity of bullying during adolescence in terms of the impact it can have on a child.
5. Discuss how bullying will not follow a child into adulthood, and that while it may seem never-ending, it will pass.
6. Find ways to build a culture of empathy and compassion within the schools.
In conclusion, the moral questions are difficult, and many. Online actions have real offline consequences, and our ethical and legal frameworks must account for that while respecting the rule of law. Writing a specific anti-cyberbullying program would be difficult with appropriate training and experience and is nearly impossible without. The outline above is taken from the lessons of a lifetime spent in many relationships and would be the approach taken with the author’s own children when the time came. Perhaps if we treated everyone as we’d treat our children, we would never have to discuss another Amanda Todd-like tragedy again.