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The fact that it is withdrawn need not be conclusive at all.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: 12193
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?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
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: 12193
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.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
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: 12193
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: 19700
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