User:24.219.192.132/sandbox

Online harassment

Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals focusing for example on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation.

There are instances where committing a crime using a computer can lead to an enhanced sentence. For example, in the case of United States v. Neil Scott Kramer, Kramer was served an enhanced sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2G1.3(b)(3) for his use of a cell phone to "persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct." Kramer argued that this claim was insufficient because his charge included persuading through a computer device and his cellular phone technically is not a computer. Although Kramer tried to argue this point, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that the term computer "means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemically, or other high-speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device."

As such, Missouri and over 40 other states have passed laws and regulations that regard extreme online harassment as a criminal act, and can be punished on a federal level.

'''Different countries have assigned different sentences to online harassment. China, a country that supports more online users than any other country, has a strict law against the bullying of young people through a bill passed by the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council in response to the Human Flesh Search Engine. The United Kingdom passed the Malicious Communications Act, among other acts from 1997 to 2013, which stated that sending messages or letters electronically that are considered “indecent or grossly offensive” with the intent to cause “distress and anxiety” can lead to a prison sentence of six months and a potentially large fine. Australia, while not directly addressing the issue of harassment, have grouped the majority of online harassment under the Criminal Code Act of 1995. Using telecommunication to send threats or harass and cause offense was a direct violation of this act.'''

Although freedom of speech is protected by law in most democratic societies (in the US this is done by the First Amendment), it does not include all types of speech. In fact, spoken or written "true threat" speech/text is criminalized because of "intent to harm or intimidate", that also applies for online or any type of network related threats in written text or speech.

'''Many people argue that online harassment is, at face, not a legal problem, but rather a social one. Because online harassment leads to physical and mental damage, some of the arguments regarding the Criminal Code Act in Australia was that in order to prevent online harassment in the future, that harassment had to have already taken place. The basis of the argument is that while laws and regulations will convince people not to harass people online, offenders would have already committed the act, therefore the damage would have already been done. '''

Sources:

[1] Solutions, Madison Web. "Chinese Authorities Address Online Bullying – Cybersmile". Retrieved 2019-10-18.

[2] Solutions, Madison Web. "Legal Perspective – Cybersmile". Retrieved 2019-10-18.

[3] Participation, Expert. "Malicious Communications Act 1988". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 2019-10-18.

[4]Canberra. "Chapter 3". www.aph.gov.au. Commonwealth Parliament; Parliament House. Retrieved 2019-10-18.