This article highlights one aspect of the information age that is disturbing. Bullying is no longer confined to the schoolyard but now reaches a much wider audience via Facebook and similar sites.

This quote from a SA school link:
http://www.schools.sa.gov.au/speced2/pages/cybersafety/36277/?reFlag=1

"Cyber bullying' is bullying which uses e-technology as a means of victimising others. It is the use of an Internet service or mobile technologies - such as e-mail, chat room discussion groups, instant messaging, webpages or SMS (text messaging) - with the intention of harming another person. Examples include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down or humiliate the recipient."

I am surprised there is not a legal avenue that would shut this site down. This is a case where the issue is not about censorship but the right to privacy and the right not to be harased or bullied by ignoramuses.

Is there not a law that seeks permission for photos and the like to be approved by the person or parents before allowing publication? Maybe that only applies to children but I suspect some of these teens are not of adult age.

The title inviting comments about girls you think are "sluts" could be construed as cyber-bullying and provide a case for slander/defamation (not sure which).

Sigh- I just can't stand these "disturbing new "trends" on the internet articles.

It's the internet.

Every person can set up a page, and people are free to say whatever they like- and as such, everything sayable will be said.

Nothing else to see here.

Just another beatup.

Trouble is Hazza, people say that until some kid commits suicide then it is all - why is this sort of harassment legal only because it is on the web?

I could start a page about my ex-boss being a dick but I wouldn't because it is defamation and only gives one side of the story.

The definition of defamation varies but according to this link - http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#defpubl

"Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule (trivial ridicule or good natured humour is less likely to be problematic than derisory ridicule)."

I agree with this sentiment about balancing defamation laws with freedom of speech:

"In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."

I doubt anyone who has been put up on the Net as a slut could be accused of using a "means to chill speech" when it is their own reputation being diminished.

I'm speechless. Actually, no I'm not. How can ONE MILLION people think this is acceptable behaviour?

It really is disgusting that so many people joined that group. One of the "reviews" of the group, referencing the token comment by the creator which was "stop putting photos of people it's bullying and it's weird, i will delete them" responded by saying "yeah, did you delete the pornographic image of the naked 14 year old girl before it ended up on some pedophile site? You're ruining people's lives."

The photo that was referred to was of some poor girl, who had exposed herself over webcam and the boy she was chatting to took a screen shot and distributed it. Posting it on this group he called her "slut." Apparently his own behaviour is just fine.

Sorry Pelican, but aside from the fact that you often cannot locate the person to charge them with slander- making internet regulation useless, it is up to people to be informed or conscious enough to take statements made on the internet with a grain of salt- if they weren't doing it with other information sources already.

Also, even off the internet- Libel and slander is much harder to slap onto someone who hurt your feelings and makes people not want to be your friend anymore than you think- a decade of Southpark should prove that.

And someone killing themselves because of what text-based comments someone made electronically? Please- he would have had a LOT more problems than that alone.

It is more worthwhile that the internet is a free information medium by adults and mature people of expressing thought, than to be treated as another medium of media, and thus must be regulated and dumbed down to be as kid-friendly as possible (why kids would even be allowed to use the internet outside parental supervision aside).

In short, its up to the world to cast off the cotton wool and toughen up, instead of stunting free speech and communication for the sake of sparing the sensitive feelings of a few thin-skinned whiners, don't you think?