Reach for the StaRs!
“Beware! I bear more grudges than lonely High Court Judges”, warned Morrisey in his dark 1994 hit, “The More You Ignore Me the Closer I Get”. It has long been the case that some of the best known songs have more than a hint of the obsessive and a wink of the inner stalker about them. Over time, inhabiting such a role has become far easier. Online snooping, use of alternative online identities and personal information, that in the recent past may only have been available to the most committed of private detectives, are avenues readily available to anyone even vaguely computer literate. And with accessibility comes temptation. The sentiments felt by those who unexpectedly find themselves in opposition to the very person who was once their best friend, business partner, colleague or even loved one have not altered. But the environment in which we live in has, and thus, the law has developed to protect those who find themselves the victim of unwanted attention. If a relationship breaks down and conflicts arise, particularly if you once trusted and confided in that very same person, it can be tempting to respond in a way that in the short term feels justified but in the long term can be absolutely the wrong move and land you with unwanted legal bills and even in Court. Here are our top 7 Don’t for the broken hearted, be that in business or in pleasure.
In our blog Anti-social media – how the law can tackle online abuse and harassment we highlighted the difficulties faced by some victims of internet abuse who before they are able to seek any form of redress must first identify the perpetrator of such abuse, who more often than not will have tweeted under a false identity and/or using one more account. The internet service providers have to date been fairly resistant to taking a pro-active stance in dealing with such abuse and pretty slow of the mark to remove offensive material once notified of its existence.
Jamiroquai frontman Jay Kay felt “genuine fear for his safety” after being targeting by an infatuated fan, Ilona Angel, who subjected him to “a prolonged period of harassment”. Earlier this week a court found Angel guilty of harassment and she was given a restraining order and ordered to pay £1,045 in costs. Angel is said to have repeatedly turned up at the singer’s home and ignored all requests to leave. Mr Kay is said to have suffered panic attacks and depression as a consequence of Angel’s conduct.
In our blog published 5 August last year, we highlighted the increasing phenomenon of revenge porn and harassment via social media sites, and analysed the effectiveness of existing civil and criminal legislation such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1998 to protect victims of revenge porn and harassment etc.
Last week’s report of the House of Lords Communications Committee has once again highlighted the increasing problem of “revenge porn”. Revenge porn arises when persons, often ex-partners, post sexually explicit pictures and videos on websites and social media networks to try to embarrass and humiliate the ex-partner following a break-up.
We have addressed the question of online abuse and harassment in a previous blog – “Anti Social Media: how the Law can Tackle Online Abuse and Harassment”.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility