FIJI HUMAN RIGHTS & ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 40 race, religion, sexual orientation and other prohibited grounds of discrimination, privacy and the right to reputation. Therefore, a legislative action that strikes a careful balance between the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and the protection of reputation including the prevention from attacks on dignity and hate speeches with minimum legal ambiguity is necessary. Minimum legal ambiguity is critical in drawing distinctions between expressions that clearly constitute a criminal offense, expressions that may not be criminally punishable but may justify civil proceedings and expressions that may not attract criminal, civil or administrative sanctions but still raises concerns about the rights of others and legislation must be weighed against the following safeguards: (1) Is the limitation prescribed by law? (2) Does the limitation pursue a legitimate aim? (3) Is the limitation necessary in a democratic society? (4) Are the limitations proportionate to the aim pursued? The Online Safety Bill, through the establishment of an Online Safety Commission, sets out a transparent redress mechanism for those that are most vulnerable and susceptible to abuse and violence on the social media including children and those who suffer from mental incapacity. Under section 17 of the Bill, the following can apply to the court for an order: • an individual who alleges that he or she has suffered or may suffer harm as a result of an electronic communication; • a parent, legal guardian or representative on behalf of an individual if the individual is a child or a person suffering from mental incapacity, as the case maybe; • the school principal or head teacher of a registered school, or his or her delegate, if the individual is a student of that school who consents; • the Commission on behalf, and with the consent, of an individual if the individual has lodged a complaint under the Act; or • the police, if the electronic communication constitutes a threat to the safety of an individual. Once in receipt of a complaint, the Online Safety Commission after carefully considering the threshold for proceedings pursuant to section 18 of the Bill may refer matters to the court for proceedings and under section 22 of the Bill, the courts can make the following orders: • an order to remove or disable the relevant electronic communication; • an order that a correction be published; • an order that an apology be published; • an order that the respondent not send similar communications to the applicant or encourage any other person to send similar communications to the applicant; • an order that the respondent not engage in any conduct which is the subject of the complaint; or • such other orders, including payment for monetary compensation or damages as the court deems just and appropriate in the circumstances. The Commission under section 15 of the Bill may refuse to investigate or cease an investigation if the Commission considers that the subject matter or the nature of complaint in unlikely to cause harm to any person or that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or that any further action is unnecessary or inappropriate. Section 18 (2) also confers powers to the court to dismiss applications made under section 17 on its own motion if it considers the application to be frivolous or vexatious or may dismiss an application made by the police on its own motion under section 18 (3) if the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that the application should be dismissed. Non-compliance with a court order is an offence under the Bill and an individual can be fined up to $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both and in the case of a body corporate a fine not exceeding $20,000 and for a director, chief executive officer, manager or officer in charge to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both. The offence of causing harm by posting electronic communication is liable upon conviction in the case of an individual to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both and in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $100,000 and for a director, chief executive officer, manager or officer in charge to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years or both. Section 24 (3) of the Bill establishes very clear criteria for the court to consider in determining whether posting an electronic communication would cause