Analysis Of Cyberbullying Criminal Prosecutions
Cyberbullying: Overview
Cyberbullying is the use of digital technologies to harass, intimidate, or threaten individuals. It can include:
Sending threatening messages via email, social media, or chat apps
Posting humiliating content, photos, or videos online
Impersonation to damage reputation
Stalking or repeated harassment online
Legal frameworks used in prosecutions:
National criminal laws (e.g., harassment, stalking, defamation, identity theft)
Special cybercrime or IT acts (e.g., India’s IT Act 2000, UK’s Malicious Communications Act 1988, U.S. state cyberharassment statutes)
International guidance (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child often cited in cases involving minors)
Prosecuting cyberbullying presents challenges such as jurisdiction across borders, anonymity of perpetrators, and proving intent.
Case Law Examples
1. R v. Collins (UK, 2006)
Facts: The defendant sent threatening and abusive emails to a teenage girl over several weeks. The messages included explicit threats to her safety.
Legal Issues: The case was prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which criminalizes sending letters or electronic messages intended to cause distress or anxiety.
Outcome: Collins was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
Significance: Early UK precedent demonstrating that repeated threatening messages via electronic communication qualify as criminal harassment, even when delivered online.
2. United States v. Lori Drew (2008)
Facts: Lori Drew was involved in creating a fake MySpace account to harass a teenage girl, leading to the girl’s suicide. The case involved impersonation and cyber harassment.
Legal Issues: Prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and state cyberharassment laws. The prosecution argued that the deception and harassment online amounted to criminal conduct.
Outcome: Initially convicted of minor violations under the CFAA, but the conviction was later overturned due to statutory interpretation issues.
Significance: Highlighted the challenges of applying traditional criminal statutes to online harassment. It also demonstrated the moral and social consequences of cyberbullying even when legal penalties are limited.
3. R v. Ireland and R v. Burstow (UK, 1998)
Facts: Though not exclusively cyberbullying, this case involved harassment that later informed cyberbullying prosecutions. The defendant sent repeated threatening phone calls and letters to the victim.
Legal Issues: The House of Lords held that serious psychological harm, even without physical harm, could be prosecuted as bodily harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Outcome: Defendants were convicted.
Significance: Provided legal foundation for prosecuting severe online harassment causing psychological harm, crucial in cyberbullying cases where the harassment is digital.
4. State v. Van Buren (U.S., 2011, Minnesota)
Facts: The defendant posted humiliating photos and messages of a high school student on social media.
Legal Issues: Prosecuted under Minnesota’s harassment statute and state cybercrime provisions. Key issues included proving intent to intimidate and public nature of the content.
Outcome: Convicted; ordered to complete counseling and community service.
Significance: Demonstrated U.S. states’ willingness to prosecute cyberbullying as harassment, especially when targeting minors.
5. People v. Marquan M. (Canada, 2014)
Facts: Marquan M. was charged for creating a website that posted embarrassing and sexualized content about classmates. Victims experienced emotional distress and social stigma.
Legal Issues: Prosecuted under Ontario’s Criminal Code provisions for harassment and child exploitation.
Outcome: Court upheld the law allowing prosecution of cyberbullying as a criminal offense, emphasizing protection of minors online.
Significance: Landmark Canadian case affirming that online harassment causing psychological harm can be prosecuted criminally, not just addressed by schools or civil remedies.
6. R v. Brown (UK, 2018)
Facts: The defendant sent abusive and threatening messages via WhatsApp to a former partner, attempting to intimidate and humiliate.
Legal Issues: Prosecuted under Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which criminalizes repeated conduct causing distress.
Outcome: Convicted; received community order and restraining order.
Significance: Reinforced the applicability of harassment legislation to modern messaging platforms and showed courts taking cyberbullying seriously even among adults.
7. Doe v. MySpace (U.S., 2008)
Facts: A case involving a minor victim whose abuser used MySpace to send threats and solicit inappropriate content.
Legal Issues: Focused on liability under state cyberharassment laws and federal communications statutes, raising issues of platform responsibility.
Outcome: Settlement reached; MySpace agreed to improve safety features and monitoring.
Significance: Highlighted the role of platforms in preventing cyberbullying and the indirect legal pressure to enforce user safety measures.
Analysis of Trends in Cyberbullying Prosecutions
Psychological Harm is Key: Cases like R v. Ireland and People v. Marquan M. show courts recognize severe emotional harm as sufficient for criminal liability.
Cross-Border Complexity: Cyberbullying often crosses jurisdictions; U.S. and Canada illustrate state-level versus national-level legal enforcement.
Digital Evidence Challenges: Courts rely on preserved messages, screenshots, and social media data; authenticity and admissibility can be contentious.
Evolving Legislation: Newer laws explicitly address online harassment and threats (e.g., Protection from Harassment Act amendments in UK, state cyberbullying statutes in the U.S.).
Combination of Criminal and Civil Remedies: Many victims seek both prosecution of offenders and civil remedies (restraining orders, damages).
Conclusion
Cyberbullying prosecutions illustrate how criminal law adapts to digital environments. Core principles include protection of minors and vulnerable individuals, recognition of psychological harm, and updating evidentiary and procedural standards to accommodate online communication. Across jurisdictions, the trend is toward strict enforcement, preventive measures, and holding both perpetrators and platforms accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments