Harassment by computer

Ads

Harassment by computer

Harassment by computer is a crime in several U.S. states (see computer crime). It is distinct from stalking in that stalking typically requires two or more contacts, whereas harassment by computer may be a single incident. It is also different from regular harassment, because the offense typically encompasses a range of crimes that would not be considered harassment if conducted in person.

Connecticut was the first state to pass a statute making it a criminal offense to harass someone by computer. Michigan and Arizona have also passed laws banning harassment by electronic means

Virginia

In Virginia, the offense is a Class 1 misdemeanor

The Virginia statute against harassment by computer, passed in 2000, is worded very similarly to § 18.2-427, which bans harassment "over any telephone or citizens band radio"

In a famous 2004 case, an Albemarle County, Virginia man was charged with harassment by computer for pretending to be his ex-wife online and inviting men to her house, warning that she would play dumb but really wanted to have sex

Although the offense did not involve harassing the ex-wife, the statute was broadly worded enough to encompass the man's actions. In 2005, a 13-year-old student was charged with harassment by computer for sending a death threats to his sister and two other students through instant messages

The Virginia statute bans using a computer to communicate any "obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language," while using such language in person remain legal in most contexts. The exception would be violations of the curse and abuse statute, a relatively narrowly defined offense In any case, harassment by computer is a Class 1 misdemeanor carrying jail time, while curse and abuse is a Class 3 misdemeanor, payable by a small fine.

The Virginia Bar Association News Journal weighed the strengths and weaknesses of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, noting, "The 'harassment by computer' provision is probably the most vulnerable to a 'free speech defense'. . . . Although 'obscene speech ... can be banned,' the Supreme Court in Reno struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) pertaining to minors because the terms 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' used in the statute were unconstitutionally vague"

The text of the provision reads:

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.