Criminal Liability For Cyber Harassment, Online Threats, And Social Media Crimes
⚖️ OVERVIEW
Cyber harassment, online threats, and social media crimes have become increasingly important as digital platforms are widely used. These crimes often involve psychological abuse, intimidation, defamation, or threats conducted through electronic means.
1. Cyber Harassment
Cyber harassment involves repeated and unwanted communication that causes distress or fear. Legal frameworks often cover emails, social media messages, and instant messaging.
2. Online Threats
This includes threats of physical harm, extortion, or coercion made via digital platforms. Even anonymous threats can be prosecuted if intent and impact are established.
3. Social Media Crimes
This is broader and includes:
Defamation online
Cyberstalking
Non-consensual sharing of intimate images
Identity theft and impersonation
Hate speech
Laws are usually codified under IT Acts, Criminal Codes, or specific cybercrime legislation. For instance:
India: IT Act 2000 (Section 66A, Section 66E), IPC Sections 499 (defamation), 503 (criminal intimidation)
US: Cyberstalking statutes under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A
UK: Malicious Communications Act 1988, Communications Act 2003
🏛️ KEY CASES (Detailed Explanations)
Case 1: United States v. Lori Drew (2008) – U.S. Federal Court
Facts:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace account to harass a teenage girl, Megan Meier, causing her to commit suicide. Drew and her co-conspirators sent messages that emotionally manipulated Megan.
Legal Issues:
Whether causing emotional distress through a fake online persona constitutes a violation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Judgment:
Initially convicted of violating CFAA, but conviction was later overturned on appeal because the law was deemed too broad to cover this case.
Significance:
Highlighted legal gaps in prosecuting cyber harassment.
Emphasized that courts must define the limits of criminal liability for online emotional manipulation.
Case 2: State of New York v. Desmond (2015) – New York, USA
Facts:
Desmond repeatedly sent threatening messages via Facebook to his ex-girlfriend, including threats of physical harm and posts disclosing her private information.
Legal Issues:
Whether repeated online threats and sharing of private information constitute cyberstalking and criminal harassment.
Judgment:
Desmond was convicted under New York Penal Law § 120.45 (stalking). The court emphasized that repeated communication intended to cause fear or emotional distress qualifies as harassment.
Significance:
Established that cyber harassment is treated equally seriously as offline harassment.
Highlighted the concept of pattern behavior over single incidents.
Case 3: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Challenge against Section 66A of the IT Act 2000, which criminalized offensive messages online. Many people were being arrested for posting critical content on social media.
Legal Issues:
Whether Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that it arbitrarily restricted freedom of speech, and vague provisions could lead to abuse.
Significance:
Landmark case in India, clarifying limits of online criminal liability.
Reinforced that online criticism is protected unless it directly threatens life or property.
Case 4: R v. Collins (2016) – England and Wales
Facts:
Collins harassed a former partner by sending abusive messages, repeatedly posting personal and intimate photos on Facebook and threatening exposure.
Legal Issues:
Whether repeated online communication and dissemination of private information amounted to malicious communication under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
Judgment:
Collins was convicted. The court emphasized that social media can amplify harm, and repeated exposure could constitute criminal harassment.
Significance:
Demonstrated UK courts treat cyber harassment and “revenge porn” seriously.
Emphasized intent to cause distress as the key element.
Case 5: Cyberstalking of Ashley Judd (2010) – U.S. Federal Court
Facts:
A man repeatedly posted threatening messages and harassed actress Ashley Judd online for months.
Legal Issues:
Whether repeated online harassment constituted cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.
Judgment:
Convicted of cyberstalking, as the court recognized that repeated threats and unwanted contact caused fear for personal safety.
Significance:
Reinforced that online stalking is a federal crime in the U.S.
Highlighted that targeting public figures online is equally prosecutable.
Additional Notable Case: People v. Marquan M. (Canada, 2017)
Facts:
Marquan M. created a website to post intimate images of young women without consent and encouraged harassment.
Judgment:
Convicted under Canada’s criminal harassment and non-consensual distribution of intimate images laws.
Significance:
This case reinforced criminal liability for online sexual harassment.
Emphasized moral and legal duty to protect digital privacy.
🧩 KEY PRINCIPLES FROM CASES
Intent and pattern of behavior matter — one-off messages may not suffice.
Threats and harassment online are treated as seriously as offline crimes.
Anonymity does not protect offenders; tracing and digital evidence are admissible.
Freedom of speech is limited by threats, defamation, or intentional distress.
Social media platforms amplify harm, which courts consider in sentencing.
RELATED Blog
comments