Online Harassment
Online Harassment:
Online harassment refers to using digital platforms—social media, emails, messaging apps, or websites—to threaten, intimidate, humiliate, or stalk individuals. It encompasses cyberstalking, doxxing, revenge porn, trolling, and coordinated abuse campaigns.
Legal frameworks for online harassment are evolving globally, including provisions under:
Cybercrime laws (e.g., India IT Act, US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act).
Criminal statutes addressing harassment, stalking, or intimidation.
Civil remedies, such as restraining orders or injunctions.
Key challenges include anonymity of perpetrators, cross-border jurisdiction, and evolving technology platforms.
1. United States – United States v. Lori Drew (2008) – MySpace Cyberbullying Case
Background:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace profile to harass a teenage girl, Megan Meier, which contributed to the girl’s suicide.
Legal Proceedings:
Prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for unauthorized access to MySpace systems.
Judicial Findings:
Initially convicted for violating CFAA; however, the conviction was later overturned on appeal because the law did not clearly cover violations of site terms of service.
Significance:
Highlighted gaps in existing cybercrime legislation regarding online harassment.
Demonstrated the need for specific cyberbullying and harassment laws beyond unauthorized access statutes.
2. India – Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Section 66A Challenge
Background:
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalized sending offensive messages via electronic communication.
Many individuals were arrested for online harassment or trolling using social media posts.
Legal Proceedings:
Supreme Court examined whether Section 66A violated freedom of speech under the Constitution of India.
Judicial Findings:
Section 66A was struck down as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
Court emphasized that harassment causing harm must be specifically defined and limited.
Significance:
Set precedent for balancing free speech with protection against online harassment.
Led to emphasis on targeted cyber harassment provisions under Section 354D (stalking) and Section 66E (privacy violations).
3. United Kingdom – R v. Chambers (2017) – Cyberstalking Case
Background:
Defendant repeatedly sent abusive messages to a former partner via social media and messaging apps.
Legal Proceedings:
Prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, amended to include cyber harassment.
Judicial Findings:
Convicted of cyberstalking, sentenced to imprisonment.
Court recognized that online messages can constitute harassment, even if no physical contact occurs.
Significance:
Demonstrated the UK courts’ recognition of digital platforms as mediums of harassment.
Reinforced the effectiveness of adapting traditional harassment laws to cyberspace.
4. Australia – R v. White (2019) – Revenge Porn / Image-Based Abuse
Background:
Defendant distributed intimate photos of a former partner online without consent.
Legal Proceedings:
Prosecuted under Criminal Code Act 1995 (Australia) – Image-Based Abuse Provisions.
Judicial Findings:
Found guilty of unauthorized disclosure of intimate images, sentenced to prison.
Court emphasized the harm to victim’s privacy, mental health, and social reputation.
Significance:
Established that online harassment includes non-verbal abuse through images or digital content.
Strengthened legal recognition of image-based abuse as a form of harassment.
5. United States – United States v. Elonis (2015) – Threatening Communications Case
Background:
Defendant posted threatening rap lyrics on Facebook targeting his ex-wife and law enforcement.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for transmitting threats via electronic communication.
Judicial Findings:
Supreme Court ruled that proof of intent to threaten (mens rea) is required, not just the effect on the victim.
Conviction was vacated because lower courts failed to establish intent.
Significance:
Clarified the role of intent in prosecuting online threats.
Important precedent for distinguishing offensive speech from criminal harassment.
6. India – State v. R. Prasad (2020) – Online Stalking / Harassment
Background:
Defendant continuously harassed a woman using WhatsApp messages, calls, and social media tags.
Legal Proceedings:
Prosecuted under IPC Section 354D (stalking), IT Act Section 66A/66E equivalents, and Section 503 (criminal intimidation).
Judicial Findings:
Convicted of online stalking and harassment, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
Court acknowledged that persistent digital harassment constitutes criminal intimidation and mental trauma.
Significance:
Reinforced that cyber harassment laws protect individuals from repetitive online abuse.
Highlighted the importance of ICT-enabled evidence collection.
7. European Union – ECtHR Case: Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015) – Liability of Online Platforms
Background:
Delfi AS, a news portal, hosted user comments that included threats and harassment.
Victim sued Delfi for allowing abusive comments.
Legal Proceedings:
Estonian courts held Delfi partially liable; case reached European Court of Human Rights.
Judicial Findings:
ECtHR upheld liability of online platforms for failure to remove clearly harassing or threatening content promptly.
Significance:
Established that platforms have responsibility to curb online harassment.
Encouraged governments to mandate content moderation policies to prevent cyber abuse.
Key Observations on Online Harassment and Legal Measures
| Observation | Details | Case Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Digital platforms are primary mediums | Harassment occurs via social media, messaging apps, and websites | Delfi v. Estonia, R v. Chambers |
| Intent is crucial for criminal liability | Mere offensive content may not be punishable; intent to threaten or harass is required | Elonis v. US, Shreya Singhal v. India |
| Traditional harassment laws can be adapted | Protection from Harassment Act, IPC stalking provisions | R v. Chambers, State v. Prasad |
| Image-based abuse is recognized | Distribution of private images is actionable | R v. White (Australia) |
| Platform accountability is evolving | Courts hold platforms responsible for enabling harassment | Delfi AS v. Estonia |
Challenges in Enforcement
Anonymity of perpetrators – Difficult to identify individuals online.
Cross-border jurisdiction – Harassment may originate in another country.
Rapid technological change – New apps and encrypted platforms complicate investigations.
Evidence collection – Digital content must be preserved securely for court use.
Balancing free speech and harassment – Courts must differentiate between offensive opinions and criminal conduct.
Conclusion
Online harassment is a growing global problem that spans stalking, threats, cyberbullying, and image-based abuse.
Legal systems are evolving to recognize digital abuse as a form of harassment, holding perpetrators criminally liable and, increasingly, platforms accountable.
Case law from the US, India, UK, Australia, and EU demonstrates the importance of:
Clear statutes defining online harassment,
Mens rea (intent) in prosecutions,
Digital forensic evidence, and
Regulatory oversight of online platforms.
Effective prosecution requires adaptation of existing laws to digital contexts, cross-border cooperation, and continuous updates to cybercrime legislation.
RELATED Blog
comments