Cyberbullying, online intimidation not to be trivialised

LETTER: THE recent school attack in Kuching has understandably raised public concern about youth violence, school safety and the influence of online subcultures.

However, equally disturbing is the speed with which speculation is being presented as fact, unverified narratives are being circulated, and those who challenge such claims are subjected to personal attacks and online harassment.

Those engaging in such conduct must be reminded that freedom of expression is not a licence to spread harmful falsehoods, intimidate others or interfere with the administration of justice.

The police are still investigating while the 16-year-old boy is reportedly receiving hospital treatment.

Yet, before investigators have completed their work, some commentators have already attributed the incident to the True Crime Community, even suggesting connections with two other school incidents.

From a criminological perspective, attributing violent conduct to a single online subculture is fundamentally flawed.

Crime rarely has a single cause but is often the culmination of interacting psychological, familial, social, environmental and situational factors.

We must remember that we are dealing with an adolescent. Whatever the seriousness of the alleged conduct, his dignity, welfare and legal rights must be protected.

Repeatedly circulating his face, words and footage of the incident serves little constructive purpose.

It risks sensationalising violence and exposing the individual to unnecessary public scrutiny.

The safeguards under the Child Act 2001 must not be disregarded simply because an incident attracts widespread attention.

There must also be a clear warning against those who resort to cyberbullying and online intimidation when their views are challenged.

The authorities, including the police and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, should take a firmer stance against demonstrably false and harmful information, cyberbullying and the circulation of material that violates children's legal protections.

Individuals who deliberately interfere with evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise obstruct investigations must be held accountable where the legal elements of an offence are established.

While misinformation, harassment and obstruction of justice are legally distinct, none should be trivialised when the conduct crosses the threshold of criminality.

The public must understand that social media is not a lawless space. Online conduct can carry legal consequences, and hiding behind claims of free speech, expertise or victimhood does not confer immunity from the law.

The media, too, must practice responsible journalism.

Providing a platform to individuals who advance unsupported claims without critically examining their accuracy risks legitimising misinformation.

Ultimately, the police must be allowed to complete their investigations without undue pressure from those attempting to impose their preferred narratives.

Criminality must be determined by evidence and due process, not speculation, intimidation or whoever commands the loudest voice in the public sphere.

DR HAEZREENA BEGUM ABDUL HAMID

Criminologist and senior lecturer,

Faculty of Law,

Universiti Malaya

AIZAT SHAMSUDDIN

Founder and Executive Director,

INITIATE.MY (Initiative to Promote Tolerance and Prevent Violence)

*The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times