can cyber bullying ever be justified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
this is the definition for american law
Cyberbullying is the use of information technology to repeatedly harm or harass other people in a deliberate manner. According to U.S. Legal Definitions, "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them".

whilst in the UK there is no specific law on cyberbullying there are a host of laws that can be applied
uk and european law can be found here
https://www.cybersmile.org/advice-help/category/cyberbullying-and-the-law

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/2
Offence of harassment.

(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/3
Civil remedy.

(1)An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2)On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

(3)Where—

(a)in such proceedings the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and

(b)the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,

the plaintiff may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.

(4)An application under subsection (3) may be made—

(a)where the injunction was granted by the High Court, to a judge of that court, and

(b)where the injunction was granted by a county court, to a judge or district judge of that or any other county court.

(5)The judge or district judge to whom an application under subsection (3) is made may only issue a warrant if—

(a)the application is substantiated on oath, and

(b)the judge or district judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction.

(6)Where—

(a)the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), and

(b)without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,

he is guilty of an offence.

(7)Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct, that conduct is not punishable as a contempt of court.

(8)A person cannot be convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct which has been punished as a contempt of court.

(9)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.


so it seems there is some recourse in law for those willing to stand up to the cyberbully, although it does require them to make official statements and be available to go to court.
something i am sure many would be more than willing to do.
I sincerely hope that those poor victims of this pernicious crime have the will to take on the bullys and seek recourse from the law.

I cannot conceive of anyone who could defend a cyberbully for whatever reason. Although I suppose there are people in the wider world who will attempt to justify anything

Backing into a lot of trouble there:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 wrote:...the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

Most cases of alleged harassment take place in cyber feuds such as we have seen. People caught up in such maelstroms are not reasonable.

Original Quill wrote:Backing into a lot of trouble there:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 wrote:...the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

Most cases of alleged harassment take place in cyber feuds such as we have seen.  People caught up in such maelstroms are not reasonable.

I cant work out if that is a defence of it or a condemnation?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Backing into a lot of trouble there:



Most cases of alleged harassment take place in cyber feuds such as we have seen.  People caught up in such maelstroms are not reasonable.

I cant work out if that is a defence of it or a condemnation?

It really was just a visceral comment, without a side. I have been involved in putting to rest a lot of cyber-wars (along with beekeeper) over the past ten-years. Additionally, I have trained as a mediator in legal cases. I really think the bullying that comes about is an irrational mind-set. People who don't understand detached comment, increasingly personalize opposition to the point that the bullying begins. It is a sub-rational process that takes place in the unselfconscious self-talk.

If you try to apply the legal reasonable mind standard, you have to involve the jurist in the fray...meaning s/he becomes irrational. It's like reading a novel or watching a film: the script becomes real if you get into it, and detachedness is lost. What happens in every western or crime drama? It ends with some sort of shoot-out at the climax, right? In turn, this is cathartic for the viewer. How do you ask for reasonableness when the subject of observation is intentionally subreasonable.

Original Quill wrote:Backing into a lot of trouble there:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 wrote:...the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

Most cases of alleged harassment take place in cyber feuds such as we have seen.  People caught up in such maelstroms are not reasonable.

I think it means a reasonable person who is not involved in it - ie, an outside observer.