Research On Cyber-Enabled Harassment, Stalking, And Doxxing Offenses
Case 1: United States v. Lori Drew (2008, USA)
Facts:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace account impersonating a teenage boy to communicate with a 13-year-old girl, Megan Meier. The messages escalated to online harassment, leading to Megan’s suicide.
Legal Issues:
Charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for unauthorized use of MySpace.
Question of whether violation of website terms of service could constitute a criminal act.
Outcome:
Drew was initially convicted under the CFAA, but the conviction was overturned on appeal because the court ruled that violating a website’s terms of service did not equal “unauthorized access.”
Significance:
Landmark case highlighting limitations of existing laws for cyberbullying and online harassment.
Sparked reforms and state-level legislation to explicitly criminalize cyberstalking and online harassment.
Case 2: R v. Nimmo & Sorley (2014, UK)
Facts:
Two Twitter users, Nimmo and Sorley, sent thousands of abusive and threatening tweets to feminist activist Caroline Criado-Perez after she campaigned for women’s representation on British banknotes.
Legal Issues:
Charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 for sending grossly offensive and menacing messages.
Outcome:
Both defendants pleaded guilty and received custodial sentences.
Significance:
One of the first major cases to apply traditional harassment laws to social media abuse.
Established that anonymity online does not exempt users from criminal responsibility for harassment.
Case 3: United States v. Cassidy (2011, USA)
Facts:
Cassidy used Twitter to repeatedly post messages targeting a Buddhist religious leader and her followers, causing emotional distress.
Legal Issues:
Charged under the federal anti-stalking statute (18 U.S.C. § 2261A).
Defense argued that tweets were public speech protected under the First Amendment.
Outcome:
The court dismissed the charges, ruling that while the messages were offensive, they did not constitute “true threats” or direct harassment.
Significance:
Clarified the boundary between free speech and harassment online.
Influenced later cyberstalking prosecutions to focus on targeted, repetitive, and threatening behavior rather than mere public criticism.
Case 4: Singapore – Public Prosecutor v. Koh (2019)
Facts:
Koh engaged in cyberstalking by creating multiple fake social media accounts to send threatening messages and personal information about his former partner. He also leaked her home address online (doxxing).
Legal Issues:
Violations under Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) (Singapore).
Doxxing provisions under 2019 amendments to POHA.
Outcome:
Koh was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to remove all offending content.
The court affirmed that publishing personal information to cause distress qualifies as doxxing, a criminal offense.
Significance:
First few cases applying the 2019 POHA amendments.
Established precedent for prosecuting online harassment and doxxing under Singapore law.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Vishal Yadav (2020, India)
Facts:
Yadav created fake social media accounts in the victim’s name and shared morphed photos online, leading to harassment and reputational damage.
Legal Issues:
Violations under Section 66E (violation of privacy), Section 67 (obscenity), and Section 66D (impersonation) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Additional charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation and intimidation.
Outcome:
Convicted under the IT Act and IPC; sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
Highlighted the intersection of cyber law and traditional criminal law in India.
Strengthened judicial recognition of online impersonation and image-based abuse as serious offenses.
Case 6: United Kingdom – R v. Walker (2016)
Facts:
Walker used Facebook to repeatedly post threatening and defamatory comments about his ex-girlfriend, tagging her friends and workplace to maximize humiliation.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Malicious Communications Act 1988.
Consideration of digital publication as a form of persistent stalking.
Outcome:
Convicted of harassment and sentenced to 12 months in prison.
Court issued a restraining order preventing further contact online or offline.
Significance:
Established that online harassment can be prosecuted as stalking if it causes sustained distress or fear.
Demonstrated courts’ willingness to treat social media harassment as equivalent to physical stalking.
Case 7: United States v. Sayer (2014, USA)
Facts:
Sayer engaged in cyberstalking his ex-partner by posting personal information, fake ads, and intimate photos online, leading to strangers contacting and harassing her.
Legal Issues:
Charged under 18 U.S.C. §2261A(2) (interstate stalking using electronic communication).
Use of personal data for humiliation and coercion (doxxing).
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years in federal prison.
Significance:
Landmark U.S. case addressing non-consensual publication of private information (early form of doxxing).
Confirmed cyberstalking laws apply even if the perpetrator and victim live in different states.
Case 8: Australia – R v. Nisbet (2018)
Facts:
Nisbet created multiple fake social media accounts to spread false information and personal details of an ex-colleague, including home address and family photos.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – using a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offense (Section 474.17).
Doxxing as a form of harassment.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to community service and restraining order.
Significance:
Recognized doxxing as a digital harassment offense under Australian law.
Showed that even indirect harassment (through posting personal info) can lead to conviction.
Key Legal Themes Across Cases
| Issue | Legal Treatment | Key Observations |
|---|---|---|
| Cyberstalking | Recognized under specific statutes (POHA in Singapore, Section 2261A in the U.S., Protection from Harassment Act in UK). | Repeated and targeted digital contact causing fear or distress is prosecutable. |
| Doxxing | Criminalized in Singapore (POHA 2019), Australia, and increasingly in U.S. jurisdictions. | Publication of personal data to threaten or harm is a separate offense. |
| Harassment via Social Media | Covered under general harassment or malicious communication laws. | Online platforms treated as public forums; anonymity does not remove accountability. |
| Free Speech vs. Harassment | Courts balance constitutional speech rights with victim protection. | Public criticism is allowed; targeted, repetitive, or threatening acts cross into criminal territory. |
| Emerging Technologies | AI-generated deepfakes, bots, and anonymous networks complicate enforcement. | Jurisdictions are updating cybercrime laws to include these forms of abuse. |
Legal Trends and Insights
Expansion of Existing Laws:
Courts and legislatures are expanding harassment and stalking laws to explicitly include digital and social media conduct.
Criminalization of Doxxing:
Publishing personal data with intent to threaten or cause distress is increasingly treated as a standalone criminal act.
Cross-Jurisdictional Enforcement:
International cooperation is growing, as many offenders and victims are in different countries.
Victim Protection Orders:
Courts now issue digital restraining orders restricting offenders’ use of social media.
Evidentiary Challenges:
Proving digital intent and linking anonymous online accounts to individuals remain major legal hurdles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments