Cyber Harassment And Threats
Cyber harassment refers to the use of electronic communication to intimidate, threaten, or emotionally abuse someone. This can include:
Threatening messages via email, social media, or messaging apps
Posting defamatory content or rumors online
Stalking or monitoring online activity
Sharing private or intimate information without consent
Cyber threats are closely related and involve direct or indirect threats of harm, including physical violence, property damage, or cyber-attacks.
Types of Cyber Harassment
Online Stalking: Repeatedly following or contacting someone online.
Cyberbullying: Harassment, insults, or humiliation through digital platforms.
Threats of Violence: Explicit threats against an individual or group.
Sextortion/Non-consensual Sharing: Sharing private images/videos without consent.
Doxxing: Publishing personal information to intimidate or endanger.
Legal and Investigative Procedures
Complaint Registration: Victims report the harassment to authorities or online platforms.
Digital Evidence Collection: Screenshots, logs, metadata, IP addresses, and digital traces.
Preservation of Evidence: Ensuring data is not deleted or altered.
Tracing the Perpetrator: Through IP addresses, device forensics, or accounts.
Prosecution: Using relevant cyber laws (e.g., IT Act in India, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the US, or harassment statutes in other countries).
Case Law Illustrating Cyber Harassment and Threats
Here are six detailed cases:
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – India
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online.
Issue: Constitutionality of penalizing online communication.
Ruling: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, emphasizing freedom of speech but clarified that true threats, cyber harassment, and defamation remain punishable.
Impact: Highlighted the distinction between offensive content and criminal harassment online.
2. Elonis v. United States (2015) – United States
Facts: Anthony Elonis posted threatening rap lyrics on Facebook directed at his ex-wife and coworkers.
Issue: Whether the threats were criminal, even if framed as artistic expression.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that intent to threaten must be proven; negligence is not sufficient.
Impact: Established the importance of intent in cyber threats cases.
3. State v. K (2012) – United Kingdom
Facts: Defendant repeatedly sent threatening emails and messages to his ex-partner.
Issue: Admissibility of digital evidence collected from email accounts.
Ruling: Court admitted forensic evidence after verifying chain of custody. Defendant was convicted.
Impact: Reinforced digital evidence procedures in prosecuting cyber harassment.
4. People v. Marquan M. (2014) – United States
Facts: A minor created a website with humiliating posts targeting classmates.
Issue: Whether cyberbullying through online content is criminal harassment.
Ruling: Court ruled that online harassment causing emotional distress is punishable under state law.
Impact: Established that online publications intended to harm others’ reputations or emotions fall under harassment statutes.
5. B v. Australia Broadcasting Corporation (2018) – Australia
Facts: Victim received threatening social media messages and harassment via comments.
Issue: Liability of platforms and responsibility of the sender.
Ruling: Court focused on the sender’s intent and used digital logs to trace the origin. Perpetrator was convicted.
Impact: Demonstrated forensic investigation of social media accounts is crucial in harassment cases.
6. State v. D (2013) – Canada
Facts: Defendant threatened ex-partner using multiple online platforms and anonymous accounts.
Evidence: Law enforcement used IP tracing, device logs, and metadata to identify the perpetrator.
Ruling: Conviction upheld due to strong forensic evidence showing pattern of harassment.
Impact: Emphasized digital forensics and evidence correlation across platforms in proving sustained harassment.
Key Lessons From These Cases
Intent is crucial: Courts often require proof that the perpetrator intended to threaten or harass (Elonis v. US).
Digital evidence admissibility: Chain of custody and preservation are critical (State v. K, State v. D).
Platform logs are essential: Social media and email servers help trace harassment (B v. ABC).
Online harassment is criminal: Even if communication occurs in digital or semi-public forums (People v. Marquan M.).
Legal frameworks evolve: Laws must balance freedom of speech with protection from threats (Shreya Singhal v. India).
Cyber harassment and threats combine technical evidence collection with legal interpretation of intent and harm. Proper forensic procedures are key to holding perpetrators accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments