Use Of Social Media In Committing Criminal Offences
1. Use of Social Media in Committing Criminal Offences
Social media platforms—such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, WhatsApp, Telegram, X (Twitter)—play a major role in modern criminal activity. Offences fall broadly into six categories:
**1.1. Cyber-enabled crimes
Traditional crimes that are easier to commit with social media:
Fraud / impersonation
Threats and extortion
Defamation
Stalking / harassment
Recruitment for human trafficking
Sale of illegal goods
Social media lowers barriers by allowing offenders to reach victims instantly, anonymously, cheaply, and globally.
1.2. Pure cybercrimes
Crimes that could not exist without digital platforms:
Hacking
Identity theft
Unauthorized access
Malware distribution
Online grooming
These rely on technical misuse of digital systems.
1.3. Violence instigated through social media
Social media can facilitate:
Coordinated riots
Violent extremist recruitment
Gang retaliation messaging
"Livestreamed" assaults
1.4. Sexual offences and exploitation
Social media is heavily implicated in:
Grooming
Distribution of child sexual abuse material
Sextortion
Revenge pornography
1.5. Evidence and digital footprints
Even when social media is not the medium of the crime, it becomes key evidence:
Location metadata
Messages and logs
Screenshots
Platforms’ backend data
2. Case Law Examples (More Than 5 Cases Explained in Detail)
Below are eight major cases involving the use of social media to commit crimes.
They illustrate different offence types, legal principles, and judicial approaches.
Case 1: R v. Choudhary (UK)
Crime: Terrorism recruitment through Facebook
Facts
Choudhary used Facebook and private messaging to encourage individuals to travel abroad for terrorist training. He shared propaganda videos, manuals, and provided logistical advice.
Court’s Findings
Social media posts constituted active encouragement of terrorism.
Private messages could be treated the same as public speech if intended to recruit.
The “public order” element was satisfied because content was shared widely and repeatedly.
Legal Principle
Online encouragement = offline encouragement.
Intent can be inferred from repeated sharing and engagement.
Case 2: United States v. Elonis (U.S. Supreme Court)
Crime: Threats posted on Facebook
Facts
Elonis posted violent threats against his ex-wife, co-workers, and police, claiming they were “rap lyrics” and artistic expression.
Court’s Findings
It is not enough that a reasonable person would feel threatened.
The prosecution must prove subjective intent or knowledge that the statements would be viewed as threats.
Legal Principle
Social-media threats require mental-state analysis; “edgy” posts may not be enough for conviction.
This case significantly shaped global jurisprudence on online threats.
Case 3: Finnish Supreme Court – KKO 2018:35
Crime: Defamation and harassment via Facebook
Facts
A defendant repeatedly posted false accusations and insulting messages about the victim on Facebook.
The posts were visible to the defendant's friends and public groups.
Court’s Findings
Although posts were not directed privately, the public nature of Facebook makes them widely disseminated.
Repeated posting constituted aggravated defamation and continuous harassment.
The platform’s features (comments, sharing) increased the harm.
Legal Principle
Social-media publication is equivalent to publishing in traditional media; wide dissemination increases seriousness.
Case 4: Finnish Court of Appeal Case (Hovioikeus) – “Instagram Grooming Case” (2019)
Crime: Child sexual grooming through Instagram
Facts
The offender used fake profiles to contact minors, requesting sexual images and arranging meetings.
Instagram direct messages were used as evidence.
Court’s Findings
Creation of fake identities to deceive minors constituted “enticing a child” and “grooming”.
Sending sexually suggestive messages alone was enough for criminal liability, even without meeting the victim.
The digital evidence trail was decisive.
Legal Principle
Grooming does not require physical contact; communicating sexual intentions online is sufficient.
Case 5: R v. Nimmo & Sorley (UK)
Crime: Twitter harassment and threats
Facts
Two individuals sent large volumes of abusive messages, threats of rape, and violent intimidation to a public campaigner on Twitter.
Court’s Findings
High volume, anonymity, and persistence made the conduct particularly severe.
The “public” nature of Twitter amplified the harm.
Sentencing considered the psychological impact and viral audience.
Legal Principle
Online harassment can be more serious than offline harassment because:
It is persistent
It reaches global audiences
It is difficult for the victim to escape
Case 6: People v. Bollaert (U.S.) – Revenge Porn Website
Crime: Extortion and exploitation using a social-media-like platform
Facts
Bollaert ran a website where individuals’ intimate photos were posted without consent. He then created a second site where victims had to pay to remove the images.
Court’s Findings
The platform constituted a deliberate system of exploitation.
Social-media architecture (profiles, comments, sharing) aggravated harassment.
The operator, not just uploaders, was responsible.
Legal Principle
Operators of social platforms can be criminally liable if they intentionally create systems that facilitate abuse.
Case 7: Commonwealth v. Carter (U.S.) – Encouragement of Suicide by Text and Social Media
Crime: Manslaughter via digital communication
Facts
Carter used text messages and social media to encourage her boyfriend to commit suicide, instructing him and pressuring him.
Court’s Findings
Persistent digital communication amounted to coercion.
Social media created a continuous influence that contributed to the victim’s state.
She had a legal duty to help once she created the dangerous situation.
Legal Principle
Digital communication can create real-world criminal liability for psychological pressure.
Case 8: State v. Gilman (USA) – Livestreamed Assault on Social Media
Crime: Filming and livestreaming a physical assault
Facts
The attacker livestreamed the beating of a victim on Facebook Live.
The online video encouraged continued violence as viewers commented.
Court’s Findings
Social media broadcasting aggravated the offence.
The livestream encouraged the attacker and increased the humiliation of the victim.
“Real-time digital exposure” was considered an aggravating factor.
Legal Principle
Using social media to amplify an assault can increase criminal severity and intent.
3. Key Legal Principles Derived from Case Law
A. Online actions = real actions
Courts consider digital communication as real-world conduct, not “virtual”.
B. Intent can be inferred from online behavior
Pattern of posting, messaging, tagging, or sharing establishes intent.
C. Public nature increases seriousness
Social-media publicity can turn:
Defamation into aggravated defamation
Harassment into aggravated harassment
Violence into aggravated assault (when livestreamed)
D. Fake profiles = deception
Creating false identities to contact minors or victims is material evidence of criminal intent.
E. Platform operators can be liable
If they intentionally facilitate criminal conduct (e.g., extortion, exploitation).
F. Victim impact is amplified
Psychological harm increases with public sharing, repetition, and viral exposure.
4. Conclusion
Social media has transformed criminal offending by providing:
Greater reach
Anonymity
Instant communication
Persistent and unavoidable harm
Public humiliation and amplification
Digital evidence trails
Case law consistently shows that courts treat online misconduct as seriously as offline misconduct, and sometimes even more severely due to the global, permanent, and viral nature of social-media content.
RELATED Blog
comments