Online Harassment Prosecution Research
๐ What is Online Harassment?
Online harassment includes conduct such as:
Sending threatening or abusive messages
Cyberstalking
Doxxing (publishing personal information)
Persistent, unwanted communication
Trolling with harmful intent
Many jurisdictions prosecute this behavior under existing harassment, stalking, or cybercrime laws, including:
U.S. federal and state laws (e.g., 18 U.S.C. ยง 875 for threats, state cyberstalking laws)
UKโs Malicious Communications Act and Protection from Harassment Act
Indiaโs IT Act Section 66A (now struck down), Section 354D
Australiaโs Criminal Code (sections on using a carriage service to harass)
๐ CASE 1: United States v. William Atchison (New Mexico School Shooter Case, 2017)
๐ Facts:
William Atchison had a long history of online harassment and hate speech on forums like 4chan and Discord, including threats and racist messages. Though much of his activity was pseudonymous, it became criminally relevant when tied to threats of violence.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Use of federal laws against transmitting threats across state lines (18 U.S.C. ยง 875)
Investigators also considered potential charges under hate crime statutes
Online harassment was seen as a precursor to real-world violence
โ Outcome:
While Atchison died during the incident he perpetrated, the case prompted investigations into his online history and law enforcementโs missed chances to act earlier.
๐ Significance:
Raised concerns about law enforcement's responsibility to act on repeated online harassment and threats.
Showed how violent harassment online can escalate to real-world violence.
๐ CASE 2: United Kingdom v. Sean Duffy (2011)
๐ Facts:
Duffy posted cruel and mocking messages on Facebook tribute pages set up for deceased teenagers, including altered photos and offensive comments.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003, Section 127, which criminalizes sending grossly offensive, indecent, or menacing messages via a public electronic communications network.
โ Outcome:
Duffy was sentenced to 18 weeks in jail and banned from social media.
The court considered his repeat offending and the psychological harm caused.
๐ Significance:
Landmark UK case showing how trolling and offensive online comments can be prosecuted as criminal acts.
Demonstrated that free speech defenses are limited when speech becomes targeted abuse.
๐ CASE 3: United States v. Tyler Barriss (2017 SWATting Case)
๐ Facts:
Barriss made a false emergency call (a "SWATting" incident) following an online dispute in a video game. The fake report led police to fatally shoot an innocent man.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Charged with involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy, and making false reports.
Though not classic harassment, it stemmed from online threats and intimidation.
Involved violations of laws prohibiting misuse of emergency services.
โ Outcome:
Sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.
๐ Significance:
One of the harshest sentences ever imposed for conduct tied to online harassment.
Highlighted the deadly consequences of weaponizing law enforcement as part of harassment.
๐ CASE 4: Australia v. Zane Alchin (2016)
๐ Facts:
Alchin engaged in mass harassment of a woman who posted feminist comments on Facebook. He and others sent her threats of rape and violence, and the abuse became widespread.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Prosecuted under Australiaโs Criminal Code for using a carriage service to menace, harass, or offend (Section 474.17).
โ Outcome:
Alchin pled guilty and received a suspended sentence with mandatory behavioral counseling.
๐ Significance:
One of Australiaโs first successful prosecutions for online gender-based harassment.
Set a precedent that public posts do not remove legal protections from harassment.
๐ CASE 5: India: Priya Pillaiโs Harassment Case
๐ Facts:
Environmental activist Priya Pillai was subjected to online threats and abuse after writing a blog post critical of government policies. The harassment included doxxing and coordinated trolling.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Although Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, police used Sections 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
โ Outcome:
Arrests were made based on tracking IP addresses; one perpetrator was charged and tried.
๐ Significance:
Demonstrated how offline criminal laws like stalking can be applied to online behavior.
Prompted discussion about need for clearer cyberstalking laws in India.
๐ CASE 6: United States v. Lori Drew (Megan Meier Case, 2006)
๐ Facts:
Drew, an adult, posed as a teenage boy to bully and emotionally manipulate 13-year-old Megan Meier via MySpace. Megan later died by suicide.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, on the theory that violating MySpaceโs terms of service constituted unauthorized access.
โ Outcome:
Drew was convicted at trial, but the conviction was later overturned, with the judge ruling that TOS violations were not sufficient to prove criminal conduct.
๐ Significance:
Highly controversial case that challenged the limits of federal cybercrime law.
Led to state-level "Meganโs Laws" to criminalize online harassment and impersonation.
๐ CASE 7: United States v. Justin Carter (2013)
๐ Facts:
Justin Carter, 19, made a sarcastic but violent-sounding comment on Facebook after losing a video game. He was arrested for terroristic threats.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Prosecuted under Texas law for making threats, despite claims it was a joke.
Raised questions about intent vs. perception in online harassment.
โ Outcome:
Carter was jailed for several months before being released on bail; ultimately, charges were dropped.
๐ Significance:
Sparked national debate on free speech vs. threat perception in online environments.
Encouraged more nuanced legal interpretations of intent in online speech.
๐ Key Legal Themes in Online Harassment Cases
| Legal Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Threats & Intimidation | Criminal charges apply when harassment includes threats of violence. |
| Stalking Laws | Used in cases involving persistent, targeted, and unwanted digital contact. |
| Misuse of Communications Systems | Many jurisdictions criminalize the use of phones/computers to harass. |
| False Reporting (Swatting) | Filing false reports tied to online disputes can result in serious charges. |
| Impersonation/Doxxing | Publishing someoneโs personal info or impersonating them can be illegal. |
| Free Speech Limitations | Courts must balance freedom of expression with protection from abuse. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments