Cyberbullying: When Does Online Behavior Become a Crime?

The internet and social media have become an essential part of daily life. However, this digital space has sometimes turned into a fertile environment for the spread of harmful behaviors such as cyberbullying, especially among children and adolescents.

The danger of cyberbullying lies in the fact that it is not limited to offensive comments or mocking others. It can escalate into organized campaigns of insults, defamation, or the publication of personal information with the intent of harming the victim.

The seriousness of this phenomenon has pushed many countries to search for legal ways to confront it, particularly after cases of suicide among teenagers who were subjected to continuous online bullying.

From a legal perspective, cyberbullying may fall under several crimes stipulated in criminal laws, such as defamation, threats, or publishing private information without the consent of its owner.

However, the legal challenge lies in determining the boundary between freedom of expression on one hand and criminal behavior on the other. Not every sarcastic comment or harsh criticism can be considered a crime; otherwise, the law would become a tool to restrict freedom of opinion.

Therefore, the legal standard often depends on the severity of the harm caused to the victim, as well as the criminal intent of the perpetrator—meaning whether their aim was to harm or defame the other person.

With the widespread use of social media platforms, an important question remains for legislators:

Are traditional criminal laws sufficient to address the phenomenon of cyberbullying, or does the digital space require new legislation that better reflects its nature?

Ten days ago, news was published about the British Parliament discussing a legal amendment that would allow the imprisonment of officials from social media and technology companies if they fail to protect children from harmful content on the internet. This discussion came in response to growing demands to protect children after a child was killed by a criminal he met through a website connected to an online game.

The news passed quietly. Some people may have supported imprisoning the heads of internet companies out of sympathy for children, or perhaps out of resentment toward those companies. Others might argue about the effectiveness of such a law that imprisons company executives, either because of the practical difficulty of controlling these companies that operate across national jurisdictions, or because the issue is fundamentally subject to economic considerations.

I have not reviewed the draft law to understand its details. However, the approval of the principle of imprisonment—not merely compensation—in this type of case (which, to the best of my knowledge, is something new) implies assuming the criminal liability of company executives for crimes committed by others in cyberspace—the internet. In my view, this contradicts the principles of criminal justice and the principle of the personal nature of punishment, which means—among other things—that a person cannot be held responsible for a crime nor subjected to its punishment unless they are the perpetrator or a participant in it, whether through agreement or assistance.

In its legal meaning, a crime consists of violating a penal provision. Its occurrence requires either an act or an omission that results in this violation, which we refer to as the material act (actus reus). This violation must also be accompanied by the perpetrator’s knowledge and intent to commit the crime, which we call criminal intent (mens rea) or the mental element.

Under this concept, the entity normally considered capable of bearing criminal liability is the natural person, that is, the human being. Accordingly, criminal liability primarily applies to natural persons. However, there has been a growing trend toward recognizing the criminal liability of legal persons—such as companies—particularly through what has become known as the person responsible for the actual management of the legal entity.

This approach can be observed in several cases, such as the liability of the person undertaking the effective management of a company under the Capital Market Law No. 95 of 1992, or the liability of the editor-in-chief under the Press and Media Law, and previously under the Penal Code. It can also be seen in the liability of service providers and managers of websites and electronic accounts under the Cybercrime Law.

However, holding the person responsible for the actual management of a legal entity (the company) criminally liable remains subject to the established rules of criminal liability. These rules require that the person being held criminally responsible must personally have committed the crime, either as a participant through assistance or agreement, and must have had knowledge of it so that criminal intent is established.

Accordingly, the French Court of Cassation ruled in one of its decisions that criminal liability did not apply to an editor-in-chief for statements made during live broadcast programs, due to the absence of proof that the editor-in-chief—the person effectively responsible—had prior knowledge that the speaker on air would utter legally punishable statements.

These same principles were taken into account when the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt upheld the constitutionality of Article 68 of the Capital Market Law No. 95 of 1992. In its ruling, the Court stated that the legislator, in order to ensure that companies operating in the capital market comply with legislative regulations—thereby protecting the rights of their clients and positively impacting the functioning of the capital market—made the basis of liability for this crime the proven responsibility of the person exercising actual management of the company within the limits of the powers granted to them. That person is held responsible for their own actions, even if the crime was committed in the name of the company, for its benefit, and using one of its means, without the provision establishing liability for the acts of others.

Between Freedom of Photography and Violation of Privacy… Where Does the Law Stand? 

In the era of smartphones and social media, photography has become a part of everyday life. With the press of a button, anyone can capture a moment and share it with hundreds or even thousands of followers. However, this ease of capturing and sharing images has opened the door to a growing social problem: violating the privacy of others by photographing or publishing their images without their consent.

This phenomenon occurs in many places: on the streets, in public transportation, in restaurants, and even within educational institutions. A person may secretly photograph others and then post the photos or videos on social media to mock them or to gain more views. In some cases, the situation escalates into public bullying or defamation, causing significant psychological harm to the victim.

The seriousness of this problem is not limited to social embarrassment; it can also lead to serious psychological and legal consequences. A person whose photos are taken or shared without consent may face bullying, damage to their reputation, or even problems in their professional or family life.

Here, the law plays an important role in drawing clear boundaries between the freedom to use technology and individuals’ right to privacy. Many legal systems criminalize photographing, recording, or publishing images of individuals without their consent in certain situations, especially when the intention is defamation, harassment, or violation of private life.

In Egypt, for example, the law penalizes violations of personal privacy. A person who photographs or publishes content related to others without their permission may face fines or imprisonment if the act results in harm or constitutes an infringement of privacy.

However, the law alone is not enough. Addressing this issue also requires greater social awareness that privacy is a fundamental right for every individual and that technology should not be used as a tool for harassment or defamation. People must also realize that publishing content on the internet does not mean it is free from legal consequences.

In the end, a simple click on a phone may seem harmless, but it can turn into a legal offense if it harms the dignity of others or violates their privacy. Therefore, the real solution lies in combining the power of the law with social awareness to ensure that technology is used in a way that respects the rights of everyone.