by Anadi Kesari
Introduction
Virtual harassment is experienced in most regions of the world, just under half of the internet users have experienced online abuse in some form.[i] Given the seamless integration of technology into our daily existence, the dark side of the virtual realm has emerged as a significant concern in an increasingly digital world. Virtual harassment, a form of cyber bullying that involves the use of digital communication tools to harass, intimidate, or threaten individuals, has become a pervasive and detrimental issue. Hate speech, insults, doxing, and non-consensual image sharing are among the numerous detrimental behaviours that have highlighted the breadth and depth of harassment taking place online. This blog is dedicated to highlight the urgent necessity of legislation to regulate virtual harassment and the significance of comparative studies in order to evaluate the efficacy of different legal frameworks.
Understanding Virtual Harassment and its major types
Dictionary meaning of harassment is “behaviour that annoys or upsets someone”[ii] which appears to be benign but its implications are far fledged and it has transformed substantially with the rise of the internet. Traditional forms of harassment, such as physical bullying and stalking, have found new expressions in the virtual domain. The arrival of the internet and social media platforms has provided perpetrators with anonymity, a broader reach, and new tools to target victims. Early instances of virtual harassment date back to the 1990s with the development of online communities and chat rooms, but the issue has become more pervasive with the proliferation of smartphones and social media in the 21st century.[iii]
Ways in which virtual harassment might take place:
- Cyberstalking: Cyberstalking involves using the internet, email, or other electronic communications to harass or pursue an individual, group, or organization. It often includes threats and libel and can escalate to physical harassment. Cyber stalkers generally use social media or other online platforms to monitor their targets, gather personal information, and attempt to control or threaten them. This behavior can cause severe emotional distress and dread in victims.
- Catfishing: Catfishing is the practice of creating a false online persona to lure possible targets into a romantic relationship. Typically, the catfisher creates a convincing profile by fabricating personal information and using stolen images. Malicious intent, such as financial fraud or emotional manipulation, can be the driving force behind actions, as can feelings of loneliness and low self-worth. When they realize they have been duped, victims of catfishing frequently experience severe emotional distress in addition to possible monetary losses. Because of the anonymity of the internet, catfishers can operate more easily, which presents difficulties for detection and prevention.
- Online Impersonation: Online impersonation refers to the act of taking on another person’s identity online, usually with the intention of misleading people. This can involve borrowing someone else’s identity and likeness to create fictitious websites, email accounts, and social media profiles. The individual may partake in anything from light-hearted jokes to more serious crimes like fraud or defamation. Victims may suffer harm to their finances, relationships, and reputation. Although there are differences in the legal measures used against online impersonation, many governments have passed legislation to combat this type of digital crime and safeguard people’s identities.
- Doxing: Doxing is the practice of disclosing to the public, usually with malevolent purpose, private or personal information about an individual without that person’s consent. Home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and other private information may be included in this data. Often, the purpose of doxing is to cause the victim harm, harassment, or intimidation. Real-world repercussions like threats, stalking, and invasion of privacy may result from it. Many jurisdictions view doxing as criminal, and social media companies frequently have policies prohibiting it. However, because of the anonymity of the internet, doxing can be difficult to enforce.
- Trolling: Trolling involves posting inflammatory, offensive, or off-topic statements online with the intent to provoke or upset others. Trolls aim to cause strong emotional responses or sabotage dialogues. This kind of activity can happen in a variety of online settings, such as forums, social media, and comment sections. Even though some trolling is harmless or funny, it may also be malevolent and seriously upset victims. The anonymity of the internet gives abusers a lot of confidence, which makes it hard to hold them responsible. In order to reduce abuse, many online groups have moderation policies
Current legal regime and lack of Awareness
In India, there was no particular law addressing virtual harassment prior to 2013, as it was covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860’s more general rules on sexual offenses but the laws were changed but still the existing legal framework offers disparate legal remedies for online harassment. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sahinta ,2023 makes intimidation, slander, voyeurism, and stalking illegal[iv]. These can all also be used to virtual environments. The Information Technology Act, 2008 prohibits publication or transmission of “obscene content” or “sexually explicit content”.[v] Moreover, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act’s existing framework—which holds platforms or intermediaries accountable for harassment that happens through their channels—is completely improper.
Despite the existence of these laws, challenges persist in effectively addressing virtual harassment in India. One significant challenge is the lack of awareness among both the general public and law enforcement agencies about these laws and how to utilize them. Additionally, the borderless nature of the internet can make it difficult to track down perpetrators, particularly if they operate from jurisdictions outside India.
Cross jurisdictional Analysis
United Kingdom: The focus in England and Wales is on general harassment prevention and protection. According to Section 1(1) of Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), a person must not engage in conduct that amounts to harassment and should reasonably know it constitutes harassment. [vi]The Act applies to both individual and group harassment intended to coerce actions. The “reasonable person test” determines what one ought to know. Sections 2-5 of the PHA outline the court’s powers to punish and prevent harassment through criminal and civil measures, such as monetary damages, injunctions, and restraining orders.[vii] While the PHA does not specifically address new technologies, the Malicious Communications Act 1998 covers electronic communications.[viii]
Japan: In Japan, stalking is defined as repeated acts of harassment directed at a specific person due to emotional attachment or unrequited love.[ix] This narrow definition confines the offense to a particular motive. Individuals can be charged with harassing if they engage in any of the following actions: repeatedly visiting or waiting near the victim’s frequented places without prior appointment, closely surveilling the victim, demanding unwanted meetings, behaving rudely, making incessant calls or sending faxes, sending discomforting items, revealing damaging secrets, or sending sexually demeaning content. The penalty for stalking includes up to six months of imprisonment or a fine up to ¥500,000. This legislation aims to address and penalize specific harassing behaviours, but its limited scope may restrict its applicability to other forms of harassment.
Canada: In Canada, harassment is addressed under Section 264 of the Criminal Code, which covers criminal harassment.[x] Section 264(1) states that no person, without lawful authority and knowing or being reckless as to whether another person is harassed, shall engage in conduct that causes the other person to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. Prohibited conduct under Section 264(2) includes repeatedly following the victim or their acquaintances, repeatedly communicating with them directly or indirectly, besetting or watching their home or workplace, and engaging in threatening conduct toward them or their family. The maximum punishment for stalking is a five-year jail term. This law aims to protect individuals from behaviours that create a pervasive sense of fear and insecurity.
Concluding Analysis and Suggestions
In the digital age, virtual harassment—which includes trolling, doxing, online impersonation, cyberstalking, catfishing, and other types of abuse—presents a fundamental problem. The swift advancement of technology and the worldwide reach of the internet pose challenges to the enforcement and implementation of current laws. In order to tackle this issue, nations ought to enact all-encompassing legislation that explicitly target cyberbullying and encourage global collaboration for intergovernmental investigations. Education initiatives and public awareness campaigns are crucial for promoting digital literacy and appropriate online conduct. Specialised training must be provided to law enforcement organisations, and units specifically focused on cybercrime should be formed. People should be urged to protect themselves online by using privacy and security technologies, and internet companies need to answer to the public for stopping and dealing with harassment. Research comparing different legal systems can help uncover best practices and guide the creation of more efficient legislation. Studying the effects of cyberbullying can assist decision-makers in appreciating the seriousness of the problem and allocating funds wisely. We can establish a safe digital space where people can communicate freely without worrying about being harassed if these steps are taken; but this will take cooperation from the legal system, academic institutions, IT businesses, and the general public.
[i]Kurt Thomas and others, ‘SoK: Hate, Harassment, and the Changing Landscape of Online Abuse’ (2021) 16(1) International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubtools/5871.pdf accessed 5 August 2024.
[ii]Cambridge Dictionary, ‘Harassment’ (Cambridge University Press) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/harassment accessed 5 August 2024.
[iii] Schoenebeck S, Lampe C and Triệu P, ‘Online Harassment: Assessing Harms and Remedies’ (2023) 9(1) Social Media + Society <https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231157297>accessed 5 August 2024.
[iv] The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (173 of 2023).
[v] The Information technology act, 2008 (10 of 2009) s 67A.
[vi] Protection from Harassment Act (C. 40 1997).
[vii] Protection from Harassment Act (C. 40 1997).
[viii] Malicious Communications Act 1988.
[ix] Nikol Nikolova, Japan’S Policy Against The Crime Of Stalking< Japan’S Policy Against The Crime Of Stalking (repec.org)> accessed 5 August 2024.
[x] Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c C-46).