If you encounter a post online that sexually violates you, the difference between taking the post down within hours, versus taking a week, means everything.

In a space where people can rapidly share, download and repost sexually abusive content, survivors deserve fast action to immediately address these online harms without delay. AWARE has long advocated for an agency that can order quick takedown of offending material without involving lengthy court proceedings.

AWARE is thus encouraged by the Ministry of Law’s and Ministry of Digital Development and Information’s proposal to set up a government agency dedicated to supporting victims of online harms, with powers to help them get timely assistance.

The ministries sent out a public consultation on some aspects of their proposed legislation, and AWARE submitted its response to them on 20 December, 2024. We recommended that the agency and the commissioner should be offices independent from the government. We also made the following recommendations.

Remedial Actions and Support for Survivors

We are pleased to note that the agency will deal with intimate image abuse, online harassment and child abuse material, among other categories of online harms. We recommended that the definition of intimate image abuse be expanded to include sextortion and non-consensual communication of sexual images.

We also recommended that there be a time frame within which the order for takedown of offending material by the agency should be complied with (preferably 24 hours), together with a temporary takedown order upon receipt of a complaint by the agency, while it investigates the matter.

Deterrence can be key to preventing technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV). We applaud the proposal to make online harms, such as intimate image abuse, child abuse material and online harassment, statutory torts and to empower the agency to disclose the identity of perpetrators to survivors. This will enable survivors to know the identity of the perpetrators and seek redress against them, such as damages (which are usually monetary compensation). We recommended the expansion of the list of online harms designated statutory torts to include “misuse of personal information” (which is defined as an online harm but was not included as a statutory tort).

We also suggested the inclusion of an alternative form of dispute resolution such as an apology law, available in jurisdictions such as the USA, Canada and Hong Kong, where offenders are encouraged to make a statement of remorse to survivors without risk of it being used against them in court.

We also recommended that agency officials who will be dealing with survivors should undergo training on trauma-informed approaches to adopt, and that support measures, such as counselling and a trauma-informed trained befriender, be provided by the agency to assist survivors.

Wide Ambit of Some Proposed Online Harms Could Lead to Potential Misuse or Abuse

We are concerned with the wide ambit of 2 types of proposed online harms: “online statements instigating disproportionate harm,” and “statements affecting reputation”:

(i) The proposed ambit of “online statements instigating disproportionate harm” is too broad and capable of misuse if the parameters of this online harm is not clear. We recommended that:

• The types of “harm” to be covered should be clarified (for example physical, reputation, emotional, psychological)
• The assessment of whether a harm is disproportionate and warrants action should be based on the level of seriousness of the harm, and not whether it is “unjustifiable harm.”

(ii) The online harm of “statements affecting reputation” concerns us because the proposed ambit is extremely wide and susceptible to being used to suppress the truth, erode freedom of speech and police opinions. It goes very far beyond the scope of the tort of defamation and extends to factually correct statements and also opinions that lower the estimation of a person.

We recommended that: This harm should only be restricted to false statements and should not extend to factually correct statements and opinions. The internet has been valuable in exposing abuses of power, and we recommended that spaces that allow for truth and for issues and matters of genuine concern to be raised, should be protected even as we ensure harms are eradicated.This harm should be combined with the proposed online harm of “false statements”.

Given that the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) already provides protection, it may be worth specifying that this legislation will not cover false statements that fall within POFMA.

Click here to read our full response to the public consultation.

Photograph by Taqqy RB on Unsplash.