Online Stalking Offences
Online Stalking Offences: Overview
Online stalking (also called cyberstalking) involves the use of the internet, social media, emails, or other digital platforms to harass, intimidate, threaten, or track a person persistently. It often causes serious emotional distress or fear to the victim.
Key Elements of Online Stalking
Repeated communication or behavior — sending messages, emails, or posting content repeatedly.
Intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate — purposefully causing fear or emotional harm.
Use of electronic means — digital platforms like social media, messaging apps, emails, or websites.
Violation of privacy — often includes monitoring or publishing private information.
Legal Framework (General)
Many jurisdictions have enacted specific cyberstalking laws or use provisions under harassment, criminal intimidation, or IT laws. Examples include:
India: Sections 354D (stalking) and 66A/66E (IT Act).
USA: Various state laws on stalking and cyberstalking.
UK: Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and the Malicious Communications Act.
Detailed Case Laws on Online Stalking Offences
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Though primarily a challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, the case clarified misuse of online communication laws.
Issue: Validity of laws curbing offensive online messages.
Holding: Struck down Section 66A for being vague but affirmed that cyberstalking can be prosecuted under appropriate sections (e.g., Section 354D IPC for stalking).
Relevance: Established that online harassment/stalking is punishable, but laws must be clear and not vague.
2. State v. Michele Raymond (New Jersey, USA, 2012)
Facts: Defendant repeatedly sent threatening emails and messages to the victim over social media.
Issue: Whether persistent unwanted electronic communication constituted stalking.
Holding: Court convicted under cyberstalking statutes, noting the emotional distress caused by digital harassment.
Relevance: Set precedent for including social media and emails under stalking laws.
3. R. v. DPP (UK, 2014)
Facts: The accused sent numerous threatening texts and messages to the victim, causing fear.
Issue: Application of Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to online stalking.
Holding: Court held that the act of repeated online messages qualifies as harassment and stalking, punishable under the act.
Key Point: Online stalking is not just offline stalking via electronic means but recognized as distinct offence.
4. In Re: Vinod v. State of Kerala (2019) – Kerala High Court
Facts: A woman was continuously harassed through WhatsApp and Facebook messages by an accused.
Issue: Whether online stalking could be penalized.
Holding: The court held that online stalking amounts to an offence under Section 354D of IPC and IT Act provisions.
Relevance: Affirmed the seriousness of digital harassment and the need for prompt legal action.
5. People v. Thompson (California, USA, 2015)
Facts: The accused used multiple online platforms to threaten and harass his ex-partner.
Issue: Whether the use of multiple online channels amplifies stalking charges.
Holding: The court held that persistent harassment across multiple online platforms constitutes aggravated cyberstalking.
Key Point: Online stalking across several digital mediums can increase severity of punishment.
Important Legal Provisions Commonly Invoked
| Jurisdiction | Provision | Description |
|---|---|---|
| India | Section 354D IPC & IT Act Sections 66A, 66E | Stalking and harassment using electronic communication. |
| USA | Various State Cyberstalking Laws | Criminalize repeated online harassment and threats. |
| UK | Protection from Harassment Act 1997 | Includes online harassment and stalking. |
Practical Safeguards for Victims
Preserve all electronic evidence (screenshots, message logs).
Report promptly to cybercrime units.
Seek restraining or protection orders.
Use privacy settings and block offenders on social media.
Conclusion
Online stalking is a serious offence recognized by courts globally. Legal systems have adapted to address the challenges of digital harassment, emphasizing victim protection and stringent punishment. Courts
RELATED Blog
0 comments