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

online harassment

Postby veritas2409 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:50 pm

Couple of quick questions

If A posts a tweet about B , and if A deletes tweet before B reads it , can the tweet be considered as potential harassment if B finds out about it via a 3rd Party after it was deleted

Does it really matter how B finds out about the tweet , is the fact he finds out about it is the important fact?

I believe I read that a threat that is made via a 3rd party isn't considered an act of harassment so does this follow if a victim only finds out about a tweet 2nd hand. I assume the tweet would have to be deleted for this to be true , otherwise the victim could see the tweet for himself
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: online harassment

Postby atticus » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:22 pm

Did what I just posted and deleted offend you?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: online harassment

Postby veritas2409 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:36 pm

no but if but if somebody tells me tomorrow that you posted something nasty , then do I have the right to be offended?
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: online harassment

Postby atticus » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:39 pm

Does the fact that the thing was withdrawn before you could see it count for nothing with you?

What is the motivation of the third party who kindly told you about post by the guy who had had second thoughts about it?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: online harassment

Postby veritas2409 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:54 pm

Yes I believe that if a tweet is deleted but read then it makes no difference. Also does the motivation of the 3rd Party matter ? The question really is if can it be harassment if you find out via the mouth of a 3rd party source ? I ask because I don't know
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: online harassment

Postby dls » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:39 pm

The act of harassment is the action giving rise to the distress.
Actions which are intended to cause distress can be harassment if in fact the victim does suffer distress.

An example might be some who goes around telling all the friends of a person something nasty about them. It need not be said directly. The offence/distress can still result as intended.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12007
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: online harassment

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:26 pm

The OP may find this thread interesting.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: online harassment

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:58 pm

atticus wrote:What is the motivation of the third party who kindly told you about post by the guy who had had second thoughts about it?

How about if he is the editor of a tabloid newspaper and he told you about it on the front page?

You cannot unsay what you have said, you can only hope that nobody significant was listening.

But harassment is a course of conduct : a tweet on its own is not a course. A course occurs when one act follows on from another act: if the tweet was the first act, then following that with another act, for example sharing the information is pursuing a course which may be likely to harass.

Thus the motivation of the third party is of paramount importance: if they shared the information because they thought the subject of the tweet ought to know what had been said, then that is one thing, but if they did so to cause dismay to the subject, then that would be quite another.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9688
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 atticus » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:40 pm

Exactly: the third party republication is significant. It is the act of the third party.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: online harassment

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:08 pm

atticus wrote:Does the fact that the thing was withdrawn before you could see it count for nothing with you?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9688
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Next

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest