Cyber Stalking And Online Harassment Case Law
🔹 Definition of Cyberstalking and Online Harassment
Cyberstalking involves the repeated use of electronic communications to stalk or harass someone, often including threats, monitoring, identity theft, or gathering personal information for malicious purposes.
Online Harassment includes any threatening, abusive, or unwanted behavior delivered through digital platforms such as social media, emails, or messaging.
📚 Detailed Case Law Explanation
1. United States v. Lori Drew (2008) – U.S.
Facts:
Lori Drew, an adult woman, created a fake MySpace account to pose as a teenage boy ("Josh Evans") in order to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, a friend of her daughter. The victim was emotionally manipulated and eventually committed suicide.
Legal Issue:
Whether violating a website’s Terms of Service (TOS) could be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Judgment:
The court ruled that using a false identity on MySpace violated TOS, but such a violation could not constitute a federal crime under CFAA. Drew was acquitted of felony charges but convicted of a misdemeanor (later overturned).
Significance:
The case highlighted the lack of clear cyberbullying laws at the time and showed the limitations of applying computer fraud statutes to online harassment. It led to broader discussions on creating specific legislation for cyber harassment.
2. R v. Nimmo & Sorley (2014) – UK
Facts:
Two individuals, Isabella Sorley and John Nimmo, sent a series of abusive and threatening messages on Twitter to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez after her campaign to feature a woman on UK banknotes.
Charges:
Convicted under the Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) for sending grossly offensive messages.
Judgment:
Both were sentenced to jail time (8 and 12 weeks), with the judge noting the “sustained campaign of vile abuse”.
Significance:
This case underscored how social media abuse is punishable under existing UK laws and set a precedent for prosecuting online threats and misogynistic trolling.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – India
Facts:
A man named Suhas Katti posted obscene messages and emails targeting a woman (his former colleague) on a Yahoo message group, defaming her character and reputation.
Legal Provisions Used:
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (publishing obscene content)
Sections 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (forgery and insulting modesty of a woman)
Judgment:
He was convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine, making this one of the first cyberstalking convictions in India.
Significance:
It demonstrated the effective use of the IT Act and IPC in prosecuting online sexual harassment and defamation, especially against women.
4. U.S. v. Elonis (2015) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Anthony Elonis posted violent rap lyrics on Facebook about his wife, co-workers, and law enforcement. He claimed the posts were fictional and protected as free speech.
Legal Issue:
Did the prosecution need to prove that Elonis intended the threats, or was it enough that a reasonable person would view them as threatening?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elonis, holding that intent must be proven in criminal threats and that negligence is not enough for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
Significance:
A landmark case in distinguishing free speech from criminal threats online. It made it more difficult to prosecute cyberstalking without clear intent.
5. Regina v. Matthew Woods (2012) – UK
Facts:
Matthew Woods posted offensive jokes on Facebook about missing children (April Jones and Madeleine McCann), which led to public outrage.
Legal Provision:
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Judgment:
He was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison. Though his messages were intended as jokes, the court found them to be grossly offensive and distressing.
Significance:
This case emphasized that online speech that causes public harm or emotional trauma can be punishable, even if posted as “jokes”.
6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – India
Facts:
This case challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending “offensive” messages electronically.
Background:
Multiple people were arrested under Section 66A for social media posts, including a girl who criticized the Mumbai bandh after Bal Thackeray’s death.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, declaring it vague and violative of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Significance:
While not a cyberstalking case per se, it was a crucial judgment affecting online expression, creating a clearer distinction between free speech and cyber abuse, and leading to calls for more specific legislation on cyber harassment.
7. U.S. v. Petrovic (2012) – U.S. Court of Appeals
Facts:
The defendant harassed his ex-girlfriend through emails, websites, and posts sharing intimate images and false statements about her. He continued even after being ordered to stop.
Charges:
Violated cyberstalking provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2).
Judgment:
The court upheld the conviction and emphasized that ongoing digital harassment across multiple platforms can constitute cyberstalking.
Significance:
Clarified what constitutes a "course of conduct" in cyberstalking cases and reinforced the seriousness of repeated online abuse.
🧾 Key Legal Takeaways
| Jurisdiction | Law/Statute Used | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| USA | 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), § 2261A | Intent is crucial; persistent online threats can lead to federal conviction |
| UK | Communications Act 2003 | Offensive or threatening online communication can result in imprisonment |
| India | IT Act 2000, IPC Sections | Legal tools exist to address online abuse, but law must balance free speech (Shreya Singhal) |
🧩 Conclusion
Cyberstalking and online harassment laws are still evolving. These cases illustrate:
The importance of intent and context in determining guilt.
Courts balancing free speech and protection from harm.
The role of platforms (like Twitter, Facebook) in facilitating or preventing abuse.
Each of these cases has contributed to a growing recognition that online spaces must be governed by legal accountability, just like the offline world.
RELATED Blog
0 comments