Judicial Interpretation Of Harassment Via Social Media
Judicial Interpretation of Harassment via Social Media
Harassment via social media (sometimes called cyber harassment, cyberstalking, or online harassment) refers to using electronic communication platforms to intimidate, threaten, or distress another person. Finnish law does not always distinguish between offline and online harassment, but the Finnish Criminal Code provides legal bases under:
Chapter 24, Section 7: Unlawful Threats
Chapter 24, Section 8: Coercion
Chapter 24, Section 10: Harassment (or “häirintä”)
Chapter 38, Section 1: Defamation/Insult, when applicable.
Courts often interpret social media harassment under these provisions, analyzing intention, repetition, and impact on the victim.
1. Finnish Supreme Court Case KKO:2019:12
Facts: The defendant repeatedly sent offensive messages, comments, and images via Facebook and private messaging to a former partner over several months. The messages were threatening, humiliating, and persistent.
Issue: Whether repeated online messages could constitute harassment under Finnish Criminal Code Section 7 (unlawful threats and harassment).
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that persistent and threatening online communication can qualify as harassment, even if there is no physical presence. The court emphasized:
Repetition of messages indicates intent to intimidate.
Emotional impact on the victim is crucial in assessing severity.
Outcome: Defendant convicted of harassment, sentenced to community service and a fine.
Significance: Established that social media communication can be treated equivalently to in-person harassment if it meets criteria of intent, repetition, and distress caused.
2. Helsinki District Court Case 2021
Facts: An individual created a fake Instagram account impersonating a co-worker and posted false allegations of criminal behavior, accompanied by sexualized content. The victim experienced anxiety and reputational damage.
Issue: Whether impersonation and false postings constitute harassment or defamation.
Judgment: Court found that:
Repeated impersonation and public posts qualify as harassment.
Defamation elements were also satisfied because posts harmed the victim’s reputation.
Social media amplifies the impact, given wide visibility.
Outcome: Conviction for harassment and defamation; damages awarded to victim for emotional distress.
Significance: Clarifies that identity impersonation on social media, combined with repeated false statements, can trigger multiple criminal provisions.
3. Turku Court of Appeal Case 2020
Facts: Defendant sent threatening comments to a public figure on Twitter after a political dispute. The threats implied physical harm and were visible to thousands of followers.
Issue: Whether threats made online to a public figure constitute unlawful threats under Finnish law.
Judgment: The court stated:
Context matters: public figure status does not make them immune.
Platform visibility increases severity, as threats are publicly disseminated.
Intent to cause fear is key; even indirect threats can suffice if reasonable fear is established.
Outcome: Defendant convicted of unlawful threats; suspended prison sentence.
Significance: Reinforces that online harassment aimed at public figures is criminalized, emphasizing public dissemination and perceived threat.
4. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Case: Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015)
Facts: An Estonian online news portal allowed anonymous users to post offensive comments about a company. The company claimed harassment and defamation.
Issue: Balance between freedom of expression and protection against harassment/defamation online.
Judgment: ECtHR held that online platforms can be liable for user-generated content if they fail to remove clearly unlawful comments promptly.
Outcome: Portal was held responsible for damages to the company.
Significance: Though not Finnish, this case influences Finnish interpretation of social media harassment, particularly regarding platform responsibility and moderation duties. Courts may consider whether online harassment was facilitated by platform negligence.
5. District Court Case in Oulu, Finland (2018)
Facts: Defendant sent multiple sexually explicit messages to a minor via Snapchat and Instagram, along with persistent requests for meetings.
Issue: Whether online sexual harassment towards a minor constitutes aggravated harassment under Finnish Criminal Code Section 10.
Judgment: Court found:
Repeated online sexualized messages constitute harassment.
The victim’s age increases severity, leading to stricter punishment.
Harassment applies even without physical contact.
Outcome: Convicted for sexual harassment; prison sentence imposed.
Significance: Confirms that harassment via social media directed at minors is taken seriously and punished under criminal law. Intent, persistence, and harm perception are crucial.
6. Supreme Court Case KKO:2022:54
Facts: Defendant used a messaging app to stalk and intimidate a former partner over six months. Messages included threats to expose personal information, insults, and constant demands to meet.
Issue: Whether cyberstalking qualifies as harassment under Finnish law.
Judgment: Court held that:
Cyberstalking can constitute harassment.
Continuous communication aimed at intimidation or control meets the legal threshold.
Evidence included message logs, screenshots, and witness testimony.
Outcome: Conviction upheld; offender sentenced to prison and prohibited from contacting victim.
Significance: Reinforces that repetitive online communication with threatening or controlling intent is punishable as harassment.
Key Judicial Principles Derived
Persistence Matters: One-off messages may not suffice; repeated messages or posts indicate harassment.
Intent to Distress or Threaten: Courts look for subjective intention to alarm, intimidate, or harass the victim.
Public vs. Private Platforms: Harassment is more severe when disseminated publicly (Twitter, Instagram) due to increased visibility.
Impact on Victim: Courts consider emotional distress, fear, and psychological harm caused by online harassment.
Platforms’ Responsibility: ECtHR cases indicate that platform moderation can affect liability if harassment is amplified online.
Special Consideration for Minors: Online harassment toward minors is treated more severely.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Platform | Type of Harassment | Outcome | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO:2019:12 | 2019 | Threatening messages to ex-partner | Conviction (community service, fine) | Online harassment treated same as offline if repetitive & distressing | |
| Helsinki District Court | 2021 | Impersonation + false allegations | Conviction & damages | Impersonation + false posts = harassment & defamation | |
| Turku Court of Appeal | 2020 | Threats to public figure | Conviction, suspended sentence | Public dissemination enhances severity | |
| ECtHR Delfi v. Estonia | 2015 | News portal | User comments | Portal liable for damages | Platforms may be liable if they fail to remove harassment |
| Oulu District Court | 2018 | Snapchat/Instagram | Sexual messages to minor | Conviction, prison | Minor victims = aggravated harassment |
| KKO:2022:54 | 2022 | Messaging App | Cyberstalking ex-partner | Conviction, prison | Continuous intimidation = harassment |
These cases collectively show that Finnish courts recognize online harassment as a serious offense, treat repeated and threatening social media behavior as equivalent to in-person harassment, and consider context, victim impact, and platform role in legal interpretation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments