The limits of school violence videos

bạo lực học đường - Ảnh 1. — School violence is nothing new. What's new is that it's now often recorded and posted online - Image created by AI.

That action might have been heartless, or it might have been the only way the children knew how to preserve a truth.

The Ministry of Education and Training 's new directive absolutely prohibits filming, photographing, or distributing violent clips. Is the education sector trying to get students to put down their phones, or is it trying to teach them when to raise their phones and when to stop?

If we go back to a time before every child had a phone, we'll see an old question still remains: why did violence still occur in schoolyards? What I'm thinking about isn't whether that directive is right or wrong, but rather what it's trying to protect and whether it might inadvertently destroy something else.

I understand why such a request was made. Once a violent video goes viral, it doesn't just stop at reporting the news. It prolongs the pain of those involved.

The face of a beaten and humiliated child is shared thousands of times, remaining online long after the bruises have healed.

Article 21 of the 2016 Law on Children recognizes the right to privacy of children, including the protection of their honor and dignity. Posting images of a child victim online to gain views is a violation of this right. The desire to prevent this is legitimate.

You may also like

Awards presented to students for their innovative ideas on preventing school violence.On the afternoon of May 29th, the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Education and Training, in collaboration with the Ho Chi Minh City Education Magazine, organized the closing ceremony and awards presentation for the 3rd "Initiatives to Ensure School Order and Prevent School Violence" competition in 2026.

However, lumping these three actions together in one sentence inevitably leads to misunderstandings. Filming, photographing, and distributing are not of the same nature. Distributing for the purpose of public shaming is something that needs to be prevented. But filming, recording an act of violence in progress, is usually a completely different matter.

In many cases, it's the only evidence that brings the incident to light. Look at recent incidents. Students in Ninh Binh and Lao Cai were beaten and chased. Why did the public find out, and why did the authorities get involved? Because someone recorded it. If no one had filmed it, those incidents would most likely have gone unnoticed.

This is where I think it needs clarification. The law protects personal images, but it doesn't provide absolute protection.

Article 32 of the 2015 Civil Code recognizes an individual's right to their image, stating that if an image is used for the public interest and does not harm the honor or dignity of the person in the image, their consent is not required.

Documenting wrongdoing to expose it and distributing images of a victim for amusement are two things that lie on opposite sides of that line.

It's also important to clarify the nature of the document. This is a guideline for the industry, not a law.

According to Clause 2, Article 14 of the 2013 Constitution, human rights and civil rights can only be restricted as prescribed by law.

Therefore, the word "absolute" here is more appropriate to be understood as a reminder of proper conduct, rather than a ban with penalties. Understood in that way, the task is not to teach students not to use their phones, but to teach them to distinguish when to record and send to the responsible person, and when to stop before pressing the share button.