Criminal Liability For Cyber Harassment, Online Threats, And Identity Theft
Cyber harassment, online threats, and identity theft are serious crimes that have evolved alongside the expansion of the internet and digital communication. Legal systems have responded by criminalizing these actions to protect individuals from harm in the online space. Let’s take a detailed look at these offenses, exploring the nature of criminal liability and illustrating it with relevant case law.
1. Cyber Harassment
Definition:
Cyber harassment refers to the use of digital platforms (such as social media, email, or messaging apps) to harass, threaten, or intimidate an individual. This form of harassment may involve repeated online communications designed to cause distress or fear.
Case Law:
People v. Kimbrough (2010)
Facts: Kimbrough was convicted for sending repeated harassing emails and messages to a former acquaintance. The messages contained threats and offensive content, and despite requests from the victim to stop, the harassment continued for several months.
Ruling: The court convicted Kimbrough under state anti-harassment statutes, emphasizing that repeated and threatening online communications constituted criminal harassment. The court noted that online harassment does not require physical presence to cause harm and can be just as psychologically damaging as traditional forms of harassment.
Legal Principle: This case reinforced the notion that harassment laws can apply to online actions, particularly when the communication is repeated, offensive, or threatening in nature. The defendant’s repeated conduct and the emotional distress caused to the victim led to a conviction.
State v. Sweeney (2012)
Facts: Sweeney was convicted of cyber harassment after posting defamatory and threatening content about a former colleague on a social networking site. The victim, who had a professional reputation at stake, was subjected to distressing online comments that led to emotional and reputational harm.
Ruling: The court upheld the conviction, citing that the defendant's posts had a clear intention to harm the victim's reputation and emotional well-being. The court emphasized that speech or content posted online could lead to criminal liability if it meets the criteria for harassment, even if the victim was not directly threatened with violence.
Legal Principle: This case highlighted that defamatory and harmful online behavior can constitute cyber harassment, particularly if the defendant’s intention is to inflict emotional or reputational harm.
2. Online Threats
Definition:
An online threat occurs when an individual uses digital platforms to communicate a threat of harm or violence, either directly or indirectly, to another person. These threats can be criminal in nature, especially if they cause the victim to fear for their safety.
Case Law:
Elonis v. United States (2015)
Facts: Elonis posted violent threats on Facebook against his ex-wife, coworkers, and law enforcement, claiming that his posts were artistic expressions protected by the First Amendment. His posts included references to shooting his ex-wife and other violent acts.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elonis, stating that mere intent to threaten was not sufficient for a conviction; the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s posts would have caused a reasonable person to fear harm. This case clarified that criminal liability for threats requires proof of the intent to instill fear, not just the content of the threat itself.
Legal Principle: The ruling emphasized that for a person to be convicted of making an online threat, there must be proof that their conduct was intended to cause fear or harm. The case is important for setting the standard for how online threats are assessed, balancing free speech and criminal conduct.
People v. Miller (2016)
Facts: Miller was convicted after posting online threats against a public official, stating that he intended to harm the official in response to a controversial policy. The posts were made through social media and included graphic language about violent acts.
Ruling: The court convicted Miller of making terroristic threats, ruling that the threats created a reasonable fear for the safety of the public official. The court noted that the use of social media to make direct threats was not protected under free speech rights, particularly when it could reasonably induce fear or disrupt public peace.
Legal Principle: This case reinforced the idea that threats made via digital platforms, particularly those that induce fear in the victim or the general public, can be subject to criminal liability. The court focused on the impact of the threats rather than the context in which they were made.
3. Identity Theft
Definition:
Identity theft involves the unauthorized use of someone else's personal information, such as Social Security numbers, credit card details, or other identifying data, for fraudulent purposes. It can lead to financial loss, reputational harm, and personal distress.
Case Law:
United States v. Gorski (2008)
Facts: Gorski was arrested for using stolen credit card numbers to make fraudulent purchases online. He gained access to these credit card numbers through hacking into a major retailer’s database and selling them to third parties.
Ruling: The court convicted Gorski under the federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. The conviction was based on the defendant’s intent to commit fraud and the clear harm caused to the victims who were unaware that their information had been stolen and used for illegal purposes.
Legal Principle: The case clarified that identity theft does not require the defendant to use the stolen identity directly; merely possessing or transferring someone else’s personal information with intent to commit fraud is sufficient to constitute a crime.
People v. Chang (2011)
Facts: Chang was involved in a scheme where he stole personal identification information from individuals through phishing emails. He used this information to open credit accounts in the victims' names, accruing large amounts of debt in their names without their consent.
Ruling: The court convicted Chang of identity theft, noting that the theft of personal information with the intent to defraud others could result in criminal liability. The court also emphasized the psychological harm and financial damage caused to the victims of identity theft.
Legal Principle: This case reinforced the idea that obtaining and using someone else’s identity information without their consent, especially for financial gain, is a serious crime. The decision also emphasized that identity theft does not require direct financial loss to the victim as long as the potential for harm is clear.
State v. Griffin (2014)
Facts: Griffin was charged with identity theft after he used stolen information from a hospital database to file fraudulent tax returns. He received tax refunds under the stolen identities and transferred the money into his accounts.
Ruling: The court convicted Griffin of multiple counts of identity theft, emphasizing the systematic and planned nature of his fraud. The court also ruled that the victims of the identity theft were entitled to restitution, as they had to work to clear their names and deal with the repercussions of having their identities stolen.
Legal Principle: This case demonstrated how extensive and organized identity theft schemes could lead to severe criminal liability. The court reinforced that even though the victims may not immediately suffer financial loss, the use of their information without consent for fraudulent purposes constitutes a crime.
Conclusion
Cyber harassment, online threats, and identity theft are all crimes that increasingly fall under the purview of modern criminal law, as the digital world expands. Through the cases discussed, we see how courts have addressed these issues by focusing on the intent behind the actions and the harm caused to victims. While these offenses can vary in terms of specific legal elements, common themes emerge: the use of digital platforms to inflict harm, whether emotionally, reputationally, or financially, is increasingly viewed with the same seriousness as traditional forms of harassment, threats, and fraud. Criminal liability is determined based on the defendant’s actions, the impact on the victim, and, in many cases, the scale of the offense.
RELATED Blog
comments