Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

online harassment

Case requests, comments, corrections, questions, answers. Just anything an everything about swarb.co.uk

Re: online harassment

Postby dls » Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:33 pm

The fact that it is withdrawn need not be conclusive at all.

If a person X comes to know that C keeps posting vile rumours about X but then withdraws the posts, why should X not be distressed, and why should not C be liable in harassment.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12511
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: online harassment

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:43 am

dls wrote:why should not C be liable in harassment.

I can see no reason, but yours is a different question to OP.

Is it more or less distressing if the subject is told about the vile things, but not what they actually were?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10552
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: online harassment

Postby dls » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:04 pm

It is perfectly compatible with the question posed.
We do not now the scenario in full/

It could equally be either someone doing something unwise and thinking better of it, or it could be someone with a (not so) cunning plan.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12511
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: online harassment

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:44 pm

dls wrote:It is perfectly compatible with the question posed.


I did not suggest otherwise, but if C keeps posting vile things, then that is likely to be harassment in itself, irrespective of other factors.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10552
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: online harassment

Postby veritas2409 » Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:14 pm

Thanks for the answers

One of the scenario's

The tweets were deleted by A after the tweet which offended A were deleted by the organisation(after A complained) who hosted the twitter account, but B who was told about them by C , is claiming he was harassed by A's tweets

I think C can claim they had a duty to tell B and there was nothing sinister in telling B

B's claim I imagine , is that the tweets were aimed at him and it doesn't matter that he find out via a 3rd party. Leaving aside the first part , I'm still unsure about the relevance of finding out via a well meaning 3rd party
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: online harassment

Postby dls » Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:42 pm

It makes no difference.

The point about the Act is that looks for any one of what might be a hundred different kinds of connections between the originating action and the ensuing distress. Whether te connection is close enough is for each individual case.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12511
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: online harassment

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:00 pm

veritas2409 wrote:The tweets were deleted by A after the tweet which offended A were deleted by the organisation(after A complained) who hosted the twitter account, but B who was told about them by C , is claiming he was harassed by A's tweets

How many people is/are A?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20645
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Previous

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron