Nearly three years ago, we launched a special section of ourwebsite, dedicated to stories and issues about the First Nations, Inuit andMtis people of Canada. Our goal in creating CBC Aboriginal was to better engage andreflect this vibrant community. And 11 million page views later, we feel evenmore strongly that this has been a necessary addition to our journalism.Today, though - a little tweak.

For over three decades Peter Mansbridge has been synonymouswith news in Canada. Last night on The National Peter announced that he wouldbe stepping down from the position that made him that. Since being named in1987 he has been CBC's Chief Correspondent in every sense of these words. He'sa reporter first and foremost, dedicated to getting the story and getting itright.

Great journalists earn our trust in the moments of ourgreatest need.

Over and over again, Peter has been the steady referencepoint in times of crisis. He's been the face of CBC News through triumph andachievement, tragedy and national loss. He has covered every federal electionsince 1972 and anchored all ten since 1984. He has covered constitutionalcrises and hosted the opening of eight Olympic games. Peter was at the fall ofthe Berlin Wall and on the ground as Canadians fought and died in Afghanistan.

Peter has always championed Canada and CBC News. As he hassaid many times, it has always been about our country. He has defended thenational in The National, and been a staunch believer that the flagship newsprogramme is about us ... OUR stories, not to the exclusion of world news, butalways from a Canadian perspective. Peter has been paramount to making CBC Newsthe most trusted brand in news in this country. We can't thank him enough forthat.

What the viewers don't see, though, is what Peter means tothose of us who have had a chance to work with him. His door is always open toanyone looking for advice. He is a valued mentor to some of our brightestjournalists and a fierce promoter of young talent.

It was black and white, film, teletype and typewriters whenPeter started. A lot has changed since then. What has not changed is that Peteris passionate about Canada and about public service journalism. He cares aboutwhere we are and where we are headed as a news service.

Peter will continue to be at the helm of The National untilJuly 1. We will find the right opportunities to thank and honour him over thenext year. Beyond that Peter will continue to have a role with CBC. We willhave more to say about that in the future.

I also want to announce today that during the course of thenext year we will launch the development of the next phase of The National. Iwill personally lead a process to build on its strengths and position it for ongoingsuccess.

The news industry is undergoing fundamental changes but thebedrock values of quality, integrity and depth that Peter stands for willalways be with us. Thank you Peter Mansbridge from your colleagues at CBC Newsand Centres.

In March, the CBC announced itwould phase out the use of pseudonyms in comments on our various websitesacross English and French services. As we noted at the time, we have beenactively reviewing our commenting policies and audience engagement strategiesfor many months. 

While the vast majority ofcomments submitted to our site fall within our guidelines, we want to do moreto elevate and promote civil conversation.

Since then, we have made somesignificant changes: we brought back the 'down-vote' to give our onlinecommunity more say on the comments they read, and have added email verificationto all new accounts.

There's another important changecoming June 13th: we will reset our online communities across CBC.ca, includingthe CBC News site. Moving forward, all community members will beasked to use real names when commenting on our pages.

What's more, all members who usean email address to sign into our platform will be asked to re-register andcreate a new account. Community members who sign into our site using Facebookor Google+ will not be required to create a new account, but we will no longerpublish comments from anyone using an obvious pseudonym, regardless of howpeople sign in.

We have a comprehensive Q & Aon the real names policy posted here.

As the public broadcaster, CBC hasa distinct role to play in surfacing and nurturing Canada's conversations. Muchof the conversation has shifted in recent years to the digital space, includingsocial media and CBCNews.ca, where we see several thousand visitors a daylogging in to comment. 

At a time when others are shuttingdown comments or struggling to maintain civility in their digital forums, westill believe it's possible to promote a respectful exchange of ideas.

We are not stopping here, either.We will soon introduce new functionality that allows people to 'mute' trolls.

We will continue to invest inevolving our community, our relationship with our online audiences, and theirconnection with each other.

We have heard from many of youalready about the new policy: some of you see the benefits, others have dwelledon the potential drawbacks. We're aware of them all, and we welcomeconstructive thoughts, ideas and feedback in the comments section below

Jennifer McGuire 

CBC has heard from a number of Canadians concerned about our commenting space, the use of pseudonyms, and some audience submissions that violated our guidelines around hate speech, particularly with respect to the francophone community in New Brunswick.

These audience comments should never have been published. They should have been caught and screened out during our moderation process. These errors are regrettable. We sincerely apologize, and we're committed to doing a better job of moderating online comments.

Allow me to underscore our position on comments:

• We don't tolerate hate speech. Our comment guidelines are explicit on this.
• Thousands of comments are reviewed each day -- a million each month -- and on occasion, errors occur. We are trying to eliminate mistakes and we address errors with our moderators.
• We provide a flag mechanism so the audience can alert our moderators to any comment they think may have violated our guidelines. Any flagged comment gets reviewed again.
• Online commenting is a challenging issue. We want to ensure Canadians have a place to engage with us and each other, and to express themselves about what they see on our sites. But as anyone who has been on the internet knows, sometimes online comments offer more heat than light. We have been actively reviewing our commenting policies and audience engagement strategies over the last few months, including our current practice of allowing the use of pseudonyms. We recognize the limits of a "real name" policy. However, in the interests of encouraging civil conversation CBC will not allow the use of pseudonyms. We will have more information on this transition as it is implemented. Right now we are letting our users know this is coming but it will take some time to ensure we make this transition smoothly.
• The vast majority of comments submitted to our site fall within our guidelines. On average, we publish 85 to 90% of the comments that are submitted to CBC.ca.

We will always promote and defend free speech, particularly different points of view on controversial matters of public interest. Our guidelines exist to ensure that debate on our sites is civil. Our moderators will do everything they can to make sure what Canadians see on our sites meets that standard.

*****

Un certain nombre de Canadiens ont fait part de leurs proccupations CBC concernant la section commentaires de nos sites web, l'utilisation de pseudonymes et certains propos du public qui ne respectaient pas nos lignes directrices concernant le discours haineux, particulirement en lien avec la communaut francophone du Nouveau-Brunswick.

Ces commentaires du public n'auraient jamais d tre publis. Ils auraient d attirer notre attention et tre filtrs par notre mcanisme de modration. Ces erreurs sont regrettables. Nous sommes sincrement dsols et nous nous engageons faire un meilleur travail de modration des commentaires publis en ligne.

Permettez-moi de prciser notre position sur la question des commentaires :

• Nous ne tolrons pas les propos haineux. Nos lignes directrices concernant les commentaires sont explicites ce sujet.
• Des milliers de commentaires sont passs en revue chaque jour - un million par mois - et il arrive parfois que des erreurs se produisent. Nous essayons de les liminer et nous les examinons avec nos modrateurs.
• Nous avons un mcanisme de signalement qui permet au public d'alerter nos modrateurs quand il pense que certains commentaires ne respectent pas nos lignes directrices. Tout commentaire qui nous est signal est pass en revue une deuxime fois.
• La publication de commentaires en ligne reprsente un dfi. Nous voulons offrir aux Canadiens un espace o ils peuvent changer avec nous et entre eux, et o ils peuvent s'exprimer propos de ce qu'ils voient sur nos sites. Mais comme tout internaute a dj pu le constater, parfois les commentaires publis ligne suscitent beaucoup d'moi sans pour autant clairer le dbat. Ces derniers mois, nous avons examin activement notre politique en matire de commentaires, ainsi que nos stratgies d'interaction avec les auditoires, incluant l'utilisation de pseudonymes. Nous reconnaissons les limites d'une politique prconisant l'utilisation de vrais noms . Toutefois, afin d'encourager les conversations courtoises, CBC ne permettra plus l'utilisation de pseudonymes. Nous aurons plus d'information vous fournir sur cette transition au moment de sa mise en uvre. Pour l'instant, nous informons nos utilisateurs de ce changement venir, mais nous prendrons le temps qu'il faut pour que la transition se fasse en douceur.
• La vaste majorit des commentaires envoys nos sites respectent nos lignes directrices. En moyenne, nous publions de 85 90 % des commentaires que CBC.ca reoit.

Nous ferons toujours la promotion de la libert d'expression et nous la dfendrons sans relche, particulirement pour exprimer des points diffrents sur des questions controverses d'intrt public. Nos lignes directrices existent pour faire en sorte que le dbat demeure courtois. Nos modrateurs feront de leur mieux pour s'assurer que ce que les Canadiens voient sur nos sites respecte cette norme.

Today we made the difficult decision to temporarily close comments onstories about indigenous people. We hope to reopen them in mid-January afterwe've had some time to review how these comments are moderated and to providemore detailed guidance to our moderators.

I want to explain our rationale for taking this unusual step.

But let me begin by explaining why we have comments on our news site.

If you follow industry trends, you'll know that the value of commentingon media websites has been debated for years.

Many publishers, including some newspaper sites in Canada, have shutcomments down. Others have turned the commenting function on their websitesover to third-party social media platforms such as Facebook.

As Fortune's Mathew Ingram recently wrote, there are common complaintscited whenever a publisher makes this move: comment sections breed trolls and"garbage"; the proportion of readers that leaves comments is small comparedwith the general audience; it costs a lot of money and time to manage andmoderate this community; and there are social media platforms better suited forthis type of conversation.

Much of that is true.

But at CBC News, we also see many positives. We believe our commentsection helps answer our mandate as a public broadcaster to reflect the countryand its regions to itself. We believe it's important to provide the public witha democratic space where they can freely engage and debate the issues of theday.

Research shows that our audience not only expects comments on a newssite like ours, but values them -- even if readers don't participate directly inthe comment threads. Those who do leave comments consume far more of ourcontent than average users, so they're a highly engaged segment of ouraudience.

We also have one of the most active comment spaces of any mediaorganization in the country. In the last few months, we set records for thenumber of comments left on our pages, topping one million comments in Septemberand October.

We've seen thoughtful, insightful and moving comments on our pages.We've seen ignorant, ill-informed and objectionable comments as well. All of itis acceptable, in our view, in a marketplace of ideas where the issues of theday are freely debated and tested. For that to work, the debate must berespectful, even if it's vigorous and pointed.

But as our guidelines make clear, we draw the line on hatespeech and personal attacks.

While there are a number of subjects and groups of people who seem tobring out higher-than-average numbers of worrisome comments, we find ourselveswith a unique situation when it comes to indigenous-related stories.

We've noticed over many months that these stories draw a disproportionatenumber of comments that cross the line and violate our guidelines. Some of theviolations are obvious, some not so obvious; some comments are clearly hatefuland vitriolic, some are simply ignorant. And some appear to be hate disguisedas ignorance (i.e., racist sentiments expressed in benign language).

This comes at the same time CBC News has made a concerted effort toconnect with indigenous communities in order to improve our journalism andbetter reflect these communities to a national audience. The success of ourAboriginal unit and our investigativejournalism around missing and murdered indigenous women are just two examples of that commitment.

We don't want violations of our guidelines by a small minority of ourcommenters to derail our good work or alienate our audience. So we're taking apause to see if we can put some structure around this. We will reopen commentsas soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience in the meantime.

Brodie Fenlon

Acting director of digital news

CBC News and Centres

Our Chief Correspondent PeterMansbridge wasn't on the set as host of The National last night. Instead he wasa few blocks away, being inducted into the Canadian News Hall of Fame. At last night's event, he gave a speech showcasing many ofthe attributes that his colleagues appreciate every day. But the heart of hisremarks were about the future of the CBC.

However, CBC News cannot always control what happens to our journalism when it is shared by a social audience.

Michael Bolen
Senior Producer, Social Media and Trends

It's not our job to push Canadians toward one position or another. We want only to inform Canadians so they can draw their own conclusions

By Jack Nagler
Director of Journalistic Public Accountability and Engagement

At CBC News, our approach to election campaigns the past few years has included paying special attention to voter engagement. We've been home to Vote Compass, which makes it easier - and dare we say more enjoyable -- for people to learn about party platforms. And last week we launched Pledge to Vote, a forum for Canadians of all stripes to talk about their priorities, and a challenge to all of us to participate in the democratic process.

If you scrolled through our inbox the past few weeks, you'd get the sense that voter engagement is alive and well. Canadians aren't shy about telling us what they think of our coverage, especially when it comes to the fairness and balance demanded by our Journalistic Standards and Practices.

Pick any federal party, and we've been told we're on a shameless campaign to undermine them. We've also been told we're on a shameless campaign to help them win on Oct. 19.

Our real objective as journalists is to do neither. It's not our job to push Canadians toward one position or another. We want only to inform Canadians so they can draw their own conclusions about which candidates have earned their support. And during an election, we take several measures to test ourselves against that objective.

First, we have our news programs log their coverage throughout the campaign. And we measure how much airtime is given to each of the parties. Over the course of this 11-week marathon campaign, we want to ensure that each has an equitable amount of airtime and coverage to make their case to Canadians. So if we see early on that a particular program or station is out of balance, we can adjust our programming accordingly.  

Note that word "equitable", which is not the same thing as "equal". As of today, Elections Canada listed 23 registered federal political parties. Giving them all the same amount of attention would not reflect reality. So we consider their electoral history, their place in current public opinion polls and their profile in the wider realm of daily political conversation.

Of course, raw numbers counting how many seconds of airtime the parties get is only part of the story. We have hired an outside firm, Cormex Research, to monitor both the volume and tone of our coverage, as well as how much time we spend on each of the issues. This gives us a more scientific analysis of how our work reflects the campaign, and again allows us to adjust if necessary to ensure our overall coverage is fair and balanced.

That assessment, by the way, includes all our platforms. We're applying the same scrutiny to our digital offerings as we do to radio and television. And that includes social media.

After the campaign is over, Cormex will put together a final report on our work. And we will be sure to make it public, probably in this blog.

Beyond that, the CBC Ombudsman has her own independent process, which includes citizen panels and experts who offer her their views on whether CBC News has lived up to its high standards.

For all that, the strong messages we hear from Canadians when they see or hear something that concerns them may be the most valuable feedback of all. The Ombudsman complaint process allows our audience to challenge us and make us accountable. That's not only a necessity as the public broadcaster, it inspires us to do better work.

Today, CBC/Radio-Canada asked Facebook and YouTube to takedown a political ad that not only uses CBC's news footage but also re-edits it.When a TV clip of an interview of a party leader, shows up in another party'sadvertising edited in a way that shifts the context of the facts, this maycause viewer confusion and even suspicion about our journalism, and theintentions of journalists. It can damage our credibility, independence andintegrity as neutral participants.

Today, CBC/Radio-Canada asked Facebook and YouTube to takedown a political ad that not only uses CBC's news footage but also re-edits it.

In recent years, social media and the ongoing technologyrevolution have led to some blurring of the necessary bright lines that mustexist between journalists on the one hand; and sponsors, advertisers, politicalparties and governments, on the other.

Leaders, listeners and viewers need to be confident that thepolitical coverage they enjoy is not in any manner framed by commercialconcerns or partisan interest.

That is why Canadian broadcast journalistic organizations -including CTV, CBC, Global and Rogers -- are so determined to limit the re-useof political coverage in paid advertising.  Our integrity as providers of serious,independent coverage of political parties and governments rests on this.

When a TV clip of an interview of a party leader, shows upin another party's advertising edited in a way that shifts the context of thefacts, this may cause viewer confusion and even suspicion about our journalism,and the intentions of journalists. It can damage our credibility, independenceand integrity as neutral participants.

At no time is it more important to insist on theseboundaries than in an election period.

With our fixed date elections today, campaigning beginsearlier and the formal writ period is no longer the boundary that it was. Sofor broadcasters, the pre-writ period is as sensitive as the formal campaignitself.

Our guiding principle is simple and clear:

No one - no individual candidate or political party, and nogovernment, corporation or NGO - may re-use our creative and copyrightedproperty without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and ourcontent.

Canada's broadcasters will defend vigorously both theirproperty and their journalistic reputation from illicit use.

By Greg Reaume

Managing Editor,

CBC News Coverage

Broadcast journalists face an array of professionalchallenges and obstacles on the job. From nailing down facts and lining up the right interviews, to copingwith unforeseen circumstances and deadline pressures.

Mostly these things are all in a day's work for CBC's well-trained staff.  But finding yourselfthe target of deliberate, public, outrageously-sexist verbal assaults whiledoing your job is a menace few journalists imagine having to face.

How to respond?  Newsorganizations have struggled with that question ever since these odious assaultsfirst started popping up.  As alreadyindicated to our staff, the CBC takes this scourge seriously.  We stand full square behind our reporters,producers and camera operators who continue to handle these incidents withremarkable grace.

There are no easy answers. We have consulted widely--with our field staff, our assignment editors,our employee unions, police, academic experts and other mediaorganizations.  This process continuestoward the goal of developing a comprehensive strategy including specifictraining programs to combat sexual harassment and other threats in the field.

In the meantime we have provided field staff with some basicsafety guidelines and recommendations. These include practical steps to help deter attacks and a reportingmechanism to ensure we have a detailed record of where and when all incidentsoccur. 

It is important to note that we recommend against ourreporters openly confronting their assailants. We respect it as a legitimate, completely understandable response toreprehensible behaviour.  But the safetyand well being of our journalists in the field is paramount.  It's difficult to know how an extremelyabusive person--possibly unstable or inebriated--might react to gesturesperceived as challenging or provocative. Based on the balance of opinion and expert advice received so far duringour consultations, we feel the risk of escalating the situation into apotentially dangerous conflict is too great.

Second, some have suggested using social media to shamepeople caught in the act of assailing reporters in the field.  This tactic comes with its own perils and ishighly contentious.  We recommend againstit at this time.  While it might havesome deterrent effect, it could also escalate matters in a way that would placeour own reporter at risk.  It bearsrepeating: our primary focus has to be on the safety of CBC people in thefield.

This is a complex, industry-wide problem, as we've madeclear, with no quick and easy solutions. All responsible broadcasters are grappling with it.  The CBC remains interested in liaising withother organizations to find effective approaches.

We all hope this repulsive "trend" eventuallyfizzles out.  We know the hurt andhumiliation it has caused.  And let mesay clearly we support, without reservation, the principled actions of all ourdedicated, hard-working reporters, producers and camera operators having todeal with this sickening abuse.

Her name is Rehtaeh Parsons.

It took us a while to be able to say her name out loud, but now we can.

What changed? And why did things change?

Let's start from the beginning.

Last spring we were covering the trials of two youth accused charged in connection with the production and distribution of child pornography. The names of the two young men, who were minors at the time, were protected from disclosure because of a publication ban under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

During this time, journalists and media were told that there was a publication ban over identifying Rehtaeh Parsons as the victim in this matter.

Rehtaeh's parents sent a letter urging the court to reconsider its position in light of Rehtaeh's story already being widely known, her passing, the immense public interest and importance of her story, and that the two young men would remain protected under the YCJA.

It turned out that the publication ban prohibiting the disclosure of Rehtaeh's name as the victim of these crimes was invoked under section 486.4(3) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

This section reads as follows:

In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

This meant that irrespective of the compelling letter from Rehtaeh's parents and the other variables, the publication ban against her name was mandatory under this Criminal Code section.

Nevertheless, given all the unique variables, CBC decided to spearhead a media coalition and rallied together with other interested media outlets to fight the application of the ban against identifying Rehtaeh as the victim and publishing her name.

CBC, along with the Halifax Herald, Global, and CTV, hired external counsel, Nancy Rubin, in Halifax to challenge the application of the ban over Rehtaeh's name.

We knew it was an uphill battle given the mandatory nature of the Criminal Code publication ban, as well as the intent behind the provision. The intent of the provision is to protect witnesses and victims under the age of 18 in connection with child pornography.

But our case was based on a unique and difficult situation that was not lost on Justice Jamie Campbell of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court. In his decision, released on May 20, 2014, Justice Campbell paraphrased and quoted verbatim from the letter by Rehtaeh's parents:

....[The letter] indicates their consent to the disclosure of her name. It goes beyond mere consent. They note that continuing to raise awareness of their daughter is in the public interest and that she should remain a presence in the current court proceeding. They state that knowledge about her and her story have helped facilitate legislative reform and awareness of issues relevant to Canadians. They have expressed their most vehement disagreement with the imposition of the publication ban.

Even the Crown agreed with the reasoning behind one of the media coalition's arguments to be able to publish Rehtaeh's name in connection with these crimes.

Furthermore, Justice Campbell, himself, believed that the pub ban "serves no purpose where the deceased young person's name is already well known to be associated with the case."

However, regardless of these factors, Justice Campbell concluded that he had "no choice in the matter" and that no discretion could be exercised in the application of this particular publication ban. From his judicial perspective, it was not a matter of whether the ban "serves a purpose" or "makes sense" in its application, but rather, the issue to be decided was if he retained the legal authority to not issue the order or to amend the ban's application.

On that front, Justice Campbell deemed that his court did not have such legal authority; and the legislative purpose behind the Criminal Code provision pertaining to the protection of witnesses and victims involved in child pornography remain intact.

Justice Campbell recognized that "[w]hen judges stretch the law to accommodate the needs of individual cases they risk creating precedents that are not what anyone intended." Therefore, the publication ban under section 486.4(3) remained mandatory in its application, regardless of the various factors at play.

Yet, in his decision, Justice Campbell included some interesting perspective that suggested that Nova Scotia Public Prosecution (NS PP) was in a position to provide assurances to media that they wouldn't press charges if the ban was broken and Rehtaeh was named.

Justice Campbell wrote:

The Crown, including any individual prosecutor, has the legal authority to take the position that it is not in the public interest to prosecute anyone who publishes information caught by the mandatory ban issued under s. 486.4(3) in this case based on its uniquely public nature...It is not for the court to purport to direct or even to advise or provide recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I will note however that it would be within the authority of the DPP to issue a direction to prosecutors in a specific case or in a certain classes (sic) of cases that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute. It would be within authority of the Attorney General to issue a public direction to the DPP to that same effect...

In the final paragraphs of his written decision, Justice Campbell reiterated the above and ended his decision on this note:

If the media tell the public what the public already knows because of the unique circumstances of this case, the Crown has the authority to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute and to provide precise, public and written assurances in that regard. That is a decision that can only be made by the prosecution service, not by me.

Buoyed by Justice Campbell's acknowledgement of the unique circumstances of this case and his questioning of the purpose of the section 486.4(3) pub ban in this case, we (the media coalition) approached the Director of Nova Scotia Public Prosecutions to issue the directive that Justice Campbell highlighted in the court decision.

In response to our letter, the Director, in agreement with the Nova Scotia Attorney General, declined to issue such a directive.

The Director concluded that issuing a peremptory pronouncement as suggested by Justice Campbell was "not in the public interest" and "unprecedented."

The Director went on to inform that the only public pronouncement in the 24 year history of Nova Scotia Public Prosecutions happened in 2003 in relation to firearms registration offences. But even in that case, the Director was quick to point out that the Directive was not absolute and was ultimately affected by the abolishment of the long-gun registry.

So despite our best efforts, we were stuck with the court decision and the letter from Nova Scotia Public Prosecutions outlining their position.

At this point, Rehtaeh's parents and some media wasted no time in expressing their dismay at the circumstances and the upholding of the pub ban over her name.

Some media outlets took a proactive position to expressly breach the publication ban based on principle, others broke the ban in more covert or creative ways. One notable example of the public dismay over the outcome of our collective challenge against the ban was the use of the hashtag #YouKnowHerName.

We all knew her name and many of us wanted to say it out loud.

But the law and the position of government authorities remained as it were and the media were prohibited from making that link between Rehtaeh as the victim in those youth criminal cases.

And then something surprising happened.

On December 17, 2014, more than six months after we received that letter from Nova Scotia Public Prosecutions confirming its position, Nova Scotia Justice Minister Lena Metlege Diab issued a ministerial directive that provided assurances against prosecution for the publishing and identifying of Rehtaeh as the victim.

The directive confirmed that there would be "no breach of the ban identifying Rehtaeh Parsons as the victim in the recent high-profile child pornography case, by media, or in any forum," and that there would be no prosecutions "unless her name is used in a derogatory way."

It was noted that Justice Minister Diab said it was "important for the public to discuss issues in society that affect teens."

In a follow-up email exchange between the CBC Law Department and Nova Scotia Public Prosecutions, they noted that the directive was indeed "unprecedented" and was issued as a way to deal with growing confusion and misunderstanding.

They expressed that they believed the directive would ensure that any use of Rehtaeh's name be done respectfully and that Parliament's intent to protect witnesses and victims from further harm in situations involving child pornography would be honoured.

This was a legal rollercoaster ride that ultimately resulted in an unexpected and favourable outcome.

We can finally say her name and she deserves that - and so much more than what she received.

Her name is Rehtaeh Parsons and she was reportedly sexually assaulted at the age of 15. A photograph of the incident was circulated at school and on social media. She was the victim of unconscionable cyber-bullying and attempted to commit suicide at the age of 17. A few days after her suicide attempt, Rehtaeh was taken off life support and died.

Her name is Rehtaeh Parsons and now we all know. We can finally say it out loud.

The review did surface that there is a range of interpretations around CBC's policy regarding disclosure of real or perceived conflict of interest.  The policy states that "the duty to disclose and remove conflicts of interest rests with the employee."