Harassment
Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment
directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals
focusing on gender, race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.
This often occurs in chat rooms, through newsgroups, and by sending
hate e-mail to interested parties (see cyber bullying, harassment by computer, stalking,
and cyberstalking). In England, in a broader form than s43
Telecommunications Act 1984, s1 Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes
it an offense to send an indecent, offensive, or threatening letter,
electronic communication, or other article to another person. Now, s2
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 criminalizes a course of conduct
amounting to harassment which the defendant knows, or ought to know,
amounts to harassment of another. If a reasonable person in possession
of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to
harassment of the other, the knowledge will be imputed
to the defendant.
Although harassment is not defined, s7 states that it
includes causing alarm or distress, and conduct is defined as including
speech in all its forms. In DPP v. Collins (2006) 1 WLR 308 the
defendant repeatedly telephoned the offices of his MP on a wide range
of political matters. In conversations with employees at the office and
on messages left on the telephone answering machine, he used racist
terms to show the frustration he felt at the way in which his affairs
were being handled. Noone was personally offended, but the staff
became depressed. Charged under s127(1) Communications Act 2003, the
magistrates found that the terms were offensive but that a reasonable
person would not find them grossly offensive. To determine whether any
message content is merely offensive or grossly offensive depended on
their particular circumstances and context, i.e. in the wider society
which is an open and just multiracial society, the test of
offensiveness was objective.
More problematic are deliberate attacks which amount to defamation, although in March 2006, Michael Keith-Smith became the first person to win damages
from an individual Internet user after she accused him of being a sex
offender and racist blogger on a Yahoo! discussion site. She also
claimed that his wife was a prostitute. The High Court found that it was libelous
and defamatory behavior. She was ordered to pay £10,000 in damages,
plus £7,200 costs. In general, libel is not treated as a criminal
matter except when it may provoke the person defamed into retaliatory
violence (see cybersmearing as it affects business).
All forms of unsolicited e-mail and advertisements can also be
considered to be forms of Internet harassment where the content is
offensive or of an explicit sexual nature. Now termed SPAM, it has been criminalized in various countries.
|
= Required
