Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Children and Peer-to-Peer Risks in Social Networks: Regulating, Empowering or a Little Bit of Both?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 24))

Abstract

Social networking services (SNS) are an important part of many children and teenagers’ media use. As they communicate and share content by means of these services, minors may also engage in more risky behaviour, leading to reciprocal harassment which may blur the lines between victims and offenders to a greater extent than in the offline world. However, due to the specific nature of SNS, the use, and especially the implementation and enforcement of, traditional types of legislation are confronted with many obstacles. After identifying certain legal implications, this chapter examines the potential of alternative regulatory mechanisms and empowerment techniques (co-regulation, technical tools, media literacy, information provision mechanisms). The goal is to provide guidelines for the development of regulatory strategies which reduce peer-to-peer conduct and content risks in user-centric environments for children and young people while safeguarding fundamental rights and public interest goals.

Social media mirror, magnify and complicate countless aspects of everyday life, bringing into question practices that are presumed stable and shedding light on contested social phenomena.

Nancy K. Baym and Danah Boyd (Baym and Boyd 2012, p. 320).

Dr. Eva Lievens is a Senior Research Fellow of the Research Fund Flanders at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT—KU Leuven—iMinds.

The research findings presented in this chapter are the result of her research project “Risk-reducing regulatory strategies for illegal and harmful conduct and content in online social network sites” (Postdoctoral research project funded by the Research Fund Flanders; www.fwo.be). The author wishes to thank Simone van der Hof and Bart Schermer for their valuable comments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Facebook statistics: www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Statistics for the end of December 2013.

  2. 2.

    Livingstone et al. 2011b, p. 1, www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/ShortSNS.pdf.

  3. 3.

    Livingstone et al. 2011a, www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20(2009-11)/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/Final%20report.pdf, p. 18.

  4. 4.

    boyd 2008, www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf.

  5. 5.

    Internet Safety Technical Task Force 2008, p. 33, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/ISTTF_Final_Report.pdf.

  6. 6.

    Lampert and Donoso 2012, p. 147.

  7. 7.

    Lievens 2010, Article 4.

  8. 8.

    Staksrud et al. 2013, pp. 40, 48.

  9. 9.

    Staksrud et al. 2013, p. 41.

  10. 10.

    See also European Commission 2012, p. 5, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:EN:PDF.

  11. 11.

    Hasebrink et al. 2009, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24368/1/D3.2_Report-Cross_national_comparisons-2nd-edition.pdf, p. 24.

  12. 12.

    Barbovschi et al. 2012, pp. 177 and 186: “The EU Kids Online findings show that ‘stranger danger’, although high on the Internet safety agenda, affects only a few children in Europe.”

  13. 13.

    Internet Safety Technical Task Force 2008, p. 4; Livingstone et al. 2011a, www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20(2009-11)/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/D4FullFindings.pdf, p. 6.

  14. 14.

    Ringrose et al. 2012, p. 9.

  15. 15.

    Görzig 2011, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39601/1/Who%20bullies%20and%20who%20is%20bullied%20online%20%28LSERO%29.pdf, p. 1.

  16. 16.

    They have been called ‘bully-victims’. Other additional roles children may adopt in a bullying situation have also been identified: e.g. assistants, reinforcers, defenders, onlookers. Levy et al. 2012, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/FINAL_BTWF_LitReview_091212-1.pdf, p. 15.

  17. 17.

    Lampert and Donoso 2012, p. 147; OECD 2012, pp. 29 and 31.

  18. 18.

    Levy et al. 2012, p. 15.

  19. 19.

    When looking at sexting from a legal perspective it is helpful to distinguish between primary and secondary types of sexting; the first meaning that minors take pictures of themselves and share these pictures with their peers themselves, the second meaning that someone forwards or further shares a picture that was sent to him by a person that took a picture of him or herself. Whereas primary sexting can be consensual (unless of course it is the result of coercion), secondary sexting is likely not to be consensual, but rather part of a revenge action (for instance by a previous love interest) or bullying behaviour, and may have a grave impact on the person in the image.

  20. 20.

    Ringrose et al. 2012, p. 26.

  21. 21.

    A recent example of how fast information that is shared by teenagers on an SNS can spread and how this may lead to unintended and unforeseen consequences is the Project X Haren Party case in the Netherlands. A party invitation of a teenage girl on Facebook that was not set to private on the event page went viral, attracted several thousands of youngsters and ended in riots. For more information, cf. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19684708.

  22. 22.

    Sacco et al. 2010, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Sacco_Argudin_Maguire_Tallon_Sexting_Jun2010.pdf, pp. 3–4.

  23. 23.

    In Belgium, for instance, according to Article 1124 of the Civil Code, minors are in principle legally incapable of entering into contracts. In practice, however, courts will take the level of discernment of the minor in question into account when deciding upon the nullity of contracts.

  24. 24.

    In Belgium, the Act of 13 June 2005 on electronic communications contains an article, which criminalises ‘harassment by electronic communication means’ (Article 145 §3bis).

  25. 25.

    Schmitz and Siry 2011, Article 3, p. 9. Note that whereas cases of secondary sexting (cf. n. 19) could be more problematic and may cause actual harm, the question remains whether this type of ‘offenses’ should be dealt with on the basis of the criminal provisions that are aimed at fighting child pornography. A new, carefully tailored legal provision, in addition to the use of empowerment strategies (discussed below) may be more appropriate to address cases where malignant intent is undeniable and the (moral) damage significant.

  26. 26.

    Livingstone and Görzig 2012, p. 152.

  27. 27.

    Van der Hof and Koops 2011, pp. 16–17, 19, 23.

  28. 28.

    However, in a case in France, a judge declared himself competent in a dispute concerning Facebook (Court of Appeal of Pau, First Chamber, Judgement of 23 March 2012, www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=breves-article&id_article=3382 [in French]). It remains to be seen whether this will be upheld in the future.

  29. 29.

    Van Bueren 2007, p. 58. Cf., Article 40 §3 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: “States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular: (a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law.”

  30. 30.

    Van Bueren 2007, p. 106.

  31. 31.

    United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules"), 1985, www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r033.htm.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Article 40 §3 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: “(b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. 4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.”

  33. 33.

    Walrave et al. 2009, www.internet-observatory.be/internet_observatory/pdf/brochures/Boek_cyberpesten_nl.pdf, pp. 101–102.

  34. 34.

    Walrave et al. 2009, p. 102.

  35. 35.

    Walrave et al. 2009, pp. 103–111.

  36. 36.

    Walrave et al. 2009, p. 107.

  37. 37.

    Van der Hof and Koops 2011, p. 13.

  38. 38.

    Lievens 2010, p. 208. Cf. also recital 44 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

  39. 39.

    For a comprehensive overview of policy history in this field, Lievens 2010.

  40. 40.

    European Commission 2012, p. 6.

  41. 41.

    European Commission 2012, p. 16.

  42. 42.

    European Social Networking Task Force 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/sn_principles.pdf.

  43. 43.

    Coalition to make the Internet a better place for kids 2011, Statement of purpose and work plan. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/ceo_coalition_statement.pdf.

  44. 44.

    ICT Coalition 2012.

  45. 45.

    Staksrud and Lobe 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/final_report/first_part.pdf, p. 8.

  46. 46.

    Donoso 2011a, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/final_report_11/part_one.pdf, p. 10 and Donoso 2011b, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/final_reports_sept_11/report_phase_b_1.pdf, p. 10.

  47. 47.

    X 2012a, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/ceo_coalition/report_11_july.pdf.

  48. 48.

    Lievens 2010.

  49. 49.

    An example of such a situation may be where content is blocked, filtered or removed by a SNS provider.

  50. 50.

    Lievens 2010.

  51. 51.

    Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of human rights with regard to social networking services, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1929453&Site=CM.

  52. 52.

    Livingstone et al. 2012, www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/EUKidsOnlinereportfortheCEOCoalition.pdf, p. 5.

  53. 53.

    Livingstone and Haddon 2012, p. 8.

  54. 54.

    Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec(2006)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on empowering children in the new information and communications environment, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2006)12&Sector=secCM&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75.

  55. 55.

    OECD Council 2012.

  56. 56.

    European Commission 2012, p. 2.

  57. 57.

    Media literacy has been defined as the “ability to access the media, to understand and to critically evaluate different aspects of the media and media contents and to create communications in a variety of contexts” in the Commission Communication on A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment: European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment, COM(2007) 833 final, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/literacy/docs/com/en.pdf.

  58. 58.

    European Commission 2012, p. 8.

  59. 59.

    Council of Europe 2012 at point 4.

  60. 60.

    See also: Council of Europe 2012 at point 10: “member States should take appropriate measures to ensure children and young people’s safety and protect their dignity while also guaranteeing procedural safeguards and the right to freedom of expression and access to information, in particular by engaging with social networking providers to carry out the following actions: provide clear information about the kinds of content or content-sharing or conduct that may be contrary to applicable legal provisions; […]”.

  61. 61.

    Donoso 2011a, at p. 8.

  62. 62.

    Please note that on the basis of Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive hosting providers do not have a general obligation to monitor content or search for illegal activities. In this context the European Court of Justice confirmed that Netlog, a SNS based in Belgium, could not be obliged to install a filtering/blocking system in order to prevent the unlawful use of musical and audiovisual works (European Court of Justice, SABAM v. Netlog, C-360-10. 16 February 2012).

  63. 63.

    Council of Europe 2012 at point 8.

  64. 64.

    Council of Europe 2012 at point 10.

  65. 65.

    European Commission 2012, p. 10.

  66. 66.

    Livingstone et al. 2012, p. 5.

  67. 67.

    Cf. for instance www.facebook.com/report or http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines. Cf. also X 2012b, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/ceo_coalition/reporting_tools_progress_report.pdf.

  68. 68.

    Please note that there are also initiatives by NGOs and law enforcement, which enable young people to report illegal or harmful behaviour, for instance, https://www.ecops.be/ in Belgium and http://www.meldknop.nl/ in The Netherlands.

  69. 69.

    Livingstone et al. 2012, p. 8; Ringrose et al. 2012, p. 59.

  70. 70.

    For instance, in cases of secondary sexting. A recent example occurred in Belgium, when suggestive (webcam) pictures of teenage girls were posted on a Facebook page titled ‘Antwerp whores’; for more information www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/Antwerp-whores-Facebook-fan-page-under-investigation-_254445.html.

  71. 71.

    X 2012b, p. 2.

  72. 72.

    Görzig 2011, p. 1.

  73. 73.

    De Zwart et al. 2011, http://newmediaresearch.educ.monash.edu.au/moodle/pluginfile.php/2117/mod_label/intro/SNSandRisks_REPORT.pdf, p. 10.

  74. 74.

    European Commission 2012, p. 9.

  75. 75.

    European Commission 2012, p. 9.

  76. 76.

    See: www.cybermentors.org.uk/.

  77. 77.

    Hathcote and Hogan 2011, p. 103.

  78. 78.

    Van der Zwaan et al. 2010, http://bnaic2010.uni.lu/Papers/Category%20A/Zwaan_et_al.pdf, p. 1; Hinduja 2010, http://cyberbullying.us/blog/peer-mentoring-as-a-strategy-to-address-cyberbullying.html; Banerjee et al. 2010, www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/robinb/bbreportsummary.pdf, p. 4; Cowie 2012, http://surrey.academia.edu/HelenCowie/Papers/1306578/Peer_support_systems_to_counteract_bullying, p. 6.

  79. 79.

    Bradshaw and Waasdorp 2012, www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/groups/lgbt/white_house_conference_materials.pdf, p. 47; Boyd and Palfrey 2012, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Necessary_Info.pdf, point 9.

  80. 80.

    Boyd 2012, www.aplatformforgood.org/blog/entry/three-conversations-for-parents-navigating-networked-publics.

  81. 81.

    Livingstone and Haddon 2012, p. 9.

  82. 82.

    European Commission 2012, pp. 10–13.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Eva Lievens

Authors
  1. Eva Lievens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Lievens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. eLaw – Center for law in the information society, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Simone van der Hof

  2. eLaw – Center for law in the information, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bibi van den Berg

  3. Faculty of Law eLaw – Centre for Law in the Information, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Schermer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 © T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lievens, E. (2014). Children and Peer-to-Peer Risks in Social Networks: Regulating, Empowering or a Little Bit of Both?. In: van der Hof, S., van den Berg, B., Schermer, B. (eds) Minding Minors Wandering the Web: Regulating Online Child Safety. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 24. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-005-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation