Posting Harmful Information on the Internet

In this digital era, the internet has become a vast and powerful platform for information sharing, communication, and, unluckily, the dissemination of hurtful content. Healthy communication and sharing of information on the internet is okay and highly welcome. However, spreading harmful information online about someone else is against the law. If you are charged, you may face severe legal consequences, including incarceration and substantial fines.

Given that you may be facing a serious situation if charged, it is essential to understand the legal framework surrounding this crime. Navigating these intricacies necessitates the legal counsel and guidance of an experienced domestic abuse attorney.

At CCLG: Los Angeles Criminal Attorney, we boast expert defense attorneys who can help beat the charges against you. We regularly defend against accusations such as posting harmful content online in LA and the surrounding areas and have built a reputation as one of LA’s top criminal defense law firms. Contact us today for a free case evaluation.

Understanding the Criminal Offense of Posting Information on the Internet

Posting harmful content on the internet is a crime defined under PC Section 653.2. According to this law, sending electronic communications (such as text messages, IMs, or emails) intending to make the victim or recipient reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family is a criminal offense.

Essentially, a judge can convict you of this offense if you post personal data about somebody online for harassment purposes. This offense is also known as indirect electronic harassment, indirect cyberstalking (or cyberharassment), or electronic cyberharassment (or cyberstalking).

Indirect cyberstalking differs from cyberstalking, also known as direct electronic harassment, described under PC 646.9. With cyberstalking, the accused personally stalks or harasses the victim. But with indirect cyberstalking under 653.2 PC, the accused only has to post content online that will make or encourage other individuals to stalk or harass the victim.

California lawmakers enacted this law in 2008, criminalizing the posting of harmful content about other individuals on the internet.

When Does Posting Harmful Information on the Internet Become Domestic Abuse?

Technology has fundamentally altered how people communicate. Social media platforms, email, and text messages facilitate speedy communication. However, they can also serve as new avenues for abusive conduct, including domestic abuse.

Traditionally, domestic abuse evokes images of physical assaults, confrontations, threats, intimidation, or bodily harm perpetrated in person. However, in today’s world, which is driven by technology, domestic violence allegations can also originate from actions perpetrated via electronic communications or on the internet. These include threatening emails, harassing text messages, or even posting harmful information about a victim on the internet.

Under California law, domestic abuse charges can be brought against anybody who was or still is in a romantic relationship with the supposed victim. This includes a romantic partner, cohabitant, spouse, or the other parent of the alleged victim’s child. According to Section 6211 of the California Family Code, domestic abuse includes any kind of violence directed towards the following parties:

• A current or an ex-wife or husband
• A current or an ex-cohabitant
• An individual with whom the defendant has a child
• An individual the accused has dated before or is currently dating

Once someone uses technology to stalk, harass, or threaten any of the above parties, the law usually considers these actions as internet domestic abuse crimes. To curb internet domestic violence crimes, or electronic domestic violence, California lawmakers have modified or created laws to address qualifying incidents. One of these laws is the law prohibiting the posting of harmful data online, as outlined in Penal Code Section 653.2. Other laws are PC 646.9, cyberstalking, and PC 647(j)(4), revenge porn.

What The Prosecutor Must Prove

To be convicted of violating Section 653.2 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must prove five key factors beyond any shadow of a doubt. These facts are referred to as the elements making up the crime. They include the following:

• You utilized an electronic communication device to distribute electronically, email, publish, make available for downloading, or hyperlink personal identifying details of someone else.
• You did that without the person’s consent.
• You did that, intending to make the person reasonably fear for their safety or that of their immediate family.
• You did that to cause the person unwanted harassment, physical contact, or injury by a third party in the near future.
• The personal identifying message or info you posted could potentially incite or cause the unwelcome physical contact, harassment, or injury.

As per this law, personal identifying information includes, but is not limited to, another person’s phone number, address, and digital image. It also entails an electronic message of a harassing nature about the person. The phrase “of a harassing nature” refers to “of any nature that any reasonable individual would consider seriously alarming, annoying, terrorizing, or tormenting of the individual, and which does not serve any legitimate purpose.”

“An electronic communication device” includes, without limitation:

• Cell phones,
• Internet websites or pages,
• Computers,
• Internet phones,
• PDAs (personal data assistants),
• Hybrid cellular, wireless, or internet devices
• Pagers,
• Fax machines,
• Video recorders, or
• Telephones

The definition of the term “electronic communication” is provided under 18 U.S.C. 2510(12) as any transfer of signals, signs, images, writings, data, intelligence, or sounds over radio, wire, photooptical systems, or electromagnetic photoelectronics.

Harassment refers to a deliberate and conscious behavior directed at a particular individual that any reasonable party would consider seriously alarming, terrorizing, tormenting, or annoying the individual, and which does not serve any legitimate purpose.

Consider this example: Mike is an engineering student who frequently shares information on an online community for engineering students. He has a girlfriend, Mellie, who is also his fellow student. One day, Mellie ends things with Mike. Mike goes on to post on the online community about how Mellie has been unfair to him. He also posts Mellie’s photo, along with the places she frequently visits and where she studies. Ultimately, he would like anyone who sees her in a public place to assist him in putting her in her place.

In this case, Mike can be convicted of violating PC Section 653.2. He shared personal details about Mellie using an electronic communication device. He also clearly meant to convince other individuals to conduct themselves in a manner that could severely annoy or alarm her.

Consider this other example: Kristy, a teenager, starts a romantic relationship with Brandon, another teenager, who is very handsome. Brandon works part-time at a recreation center. Kristy has a massive following on her Facebook page. She shares pictures of Brandon on her page, some of them showing him at work. These pictures are accompanied by captions in which Kristy proclaims her love for her attractive boyfriend.

Brandon’s pictures go viral courtesy of Kristy’s friends reposting them and sharing them with their other friends. Soon, many teenage girls who do not even know Brandon start visiting his workplace and start flirting with him. Brandon’s boss becomes so annoyed that he threatens to terminate him. In this case, Kristy should not be convicted of breaking PC Section 653.2. She shared information online that resulted in other people annoying Brandon. However, she never intended to cause other parties to harass him or put him in a position where he feared for his safety.

It is crucial to recall that a jury can convict you of violating PC Section 653.2 even if nobody ever annoys or harasses the targeted victim. It is not even a must that the victim knows about the possible harmful content you might have posted on the internet. That is primarily what differentiates this crime from crimes such as criminal threats under PC 422, where the alleged victim must actually fear for their safety.

Consider this example: Alex and Bridget are going through a divorce. Since Alex has erratic behavior, Bridget obtains a protective order to keep him away from her. In response, Alex starts falsely accusing Bridget on Facebook. He alleges that Bridget is stalking and threatening him with death. He also claims that he was the one who obtained the protective order, not the other way around.

One day, Alex posts on Facebook saying he will attend a particular party. He urges his friends to contact the police should Bridget show up at that party. Bridget ends up not going to the party. In this case, Alex can be convicted of violating PC Section 653.2, even though nobody actually harassed Bridget as a result of his posts.

How Posting Harmful Content Online Affects Victims

The consequences of disseminating harmful content electronically can be both harsh and widespread for the targeted party. For example, it may cause businesses and individuals to suffer irreversible damage. The damage can include emotional distress, reputational damage, or physical injury. The pervasive nature of online platforms enables harmful data to spread more quickly, increasing the possible resulting damage.

Apart from personal harm, posting harmful content can disrupt businesses, strain personal relationships, and tarnish professional reputations. It is essential to understand the severity of these repercussions and develop a compelling legal defense strategy to mitigate any potential fallout.

Defending Against PC Section 653.2 Accusations

When facing accusations under PC Section 653.2, developing a compelling defense strategy is paramount. An experienced domestic abuse defense attorney can argue various legal defenses on your behalf. The specific defenses they will assert will depend on the particular facts of the case. The prosecution must demonstrate all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot, a judge must dismiss your case. Some defenses you, with the help of your lawyer, can argue to poke holes into the prosecution’s evidence include the following:

• False accusations. Proving that you never posted the harmful content, but rather that somebody else did, can be a compelling defense. This could entail presenting evidence, such as digital forensics, witness testimonies, or alibis, to establish that you are not liable for the shared content.
• Procedural defenses. Scrutinizing the procedures the authorities followed during the arrest and investigation is essential. If they violated your constitutional rights in any way, committed procedural mistakes, or mishandled evidence, you could raise a valid defense. This could involve filing motions to suppress given elements of the case or contesting the admissibility of evidence.
• Contextual misunderstanding. Sometimes, harmless content could be taken out of context, causing the involved parties to misunderstand the situation. A legal defense could entail presenting arguments or evidence that clarifies the context of the shared information, proving that it was not meant to inflict harm and that the prosecution misconstrued it.
• First Amendment considerations. Arguing your rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could be a valid defense. This is especially so if the harmful content is categorized as protected speech. Even though there are restrictions on free speech, particular types of expression are protected under the Constitution, and a knowledgeable lawyer can assert that the shared information falls under these protected boundaries.

• You did not cause the supposed victim to have any reason to fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family.
• You did not cause a third party to make unwelcome physical contact with, harass, or injure the victim. If you can prove it, you can argue that you shared the information, but the victim did not suffer any unwelcome physical contact, harassment, or injury because of it. Alternatively, you can argue that even though the victim suffered unwelcome physical contact, harassment, or injury, it was not due to the information you posted; instead, it was due to something else.
• You had permission to share the information. You can also assert that the victim permitted you to post their information on the internet, and you never did it to cause any harm.
• Inadequate evidence. This defense involves proving that the D.A. cannot show that you sent or posted harmful information on the internet.

In addition, lack of intention is an essential defense strategy, as the prosecutor must demonstrate that you intended to inflict harm through your online actions. Many people easily misunderstand a humorous or casual comment or remark on the net. However, if you did not have the requisite criminal intention, the judge cannot convict you. That is true even if the information you wrote or posted led someone else to harass another person.

The ideal way to determine the best defense strategies for your case is to work with an experienced internet domestic violence lawyer.

Consequences of Violating PC Section 653.2

Posting harmful content on the internet is considered a misdemeanor offense under California law. A conviction is punishable by:

• A jail term of not more than one year
• Summary probation, during which conditions may include restrictions on gun possession and routine check-ins with a probation officer
• A court fine that is not more than $1,000
• Possible court-ordered domestic violence classes
• A potential restraining order prohibiting contact with the victim
• Participation in a minimum 52-week batterers’ intervention program
• Potential loss of government assistance programs

In addition, a conviction of violating Section 653.2, especially in the context of domestic violence, can lead to long-lasting collateral penalties. These could include challenges in custody proceedings, possible immigration repercussions for immigrants, and potential professional licensing difficulties.

In practice, penalties can vary broadly based on the specific facts surrounding the case. Additionally, your criminal history can significantly influence the severity of the sentence ordered. It is up to the judge to impose sentences, and they have a broad legal discretion. Your lawyer can present mitigating circumstances in an effort to lower your sentence after you have been convicted. They can submit evidence of rehabilitation and good character in an effort to lighten your sentence.

Working with a Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer

A domestic abuse defense lawyer’s role is central in navigating any allegations under PC Section 653.2. With an in-depth understanding of internet domestic violence laws, these lawyers can develop a strong defense strategy tailored to the particular circumstances of each situation. Their exceptional knowledge enables them to analyze the intricacies of digital evidence, legal precedents, and online communication with great effectiveness.

Legal representation and guidance go beyond simply defending against criminal charges. They can also help mitigate the potential penalties linked to criminal accusations. Your lawyer can negotiate with prosecuting attorneys, explore plea deal options, or pursue charge dismissals if appropriate. They can also bring motions to suppress inadmissible evidence or conduct independent investigations to find evidence of your innocence. Hiring the right defense attorney is a crucial step in protecting your legal rights and securing the best possible outcome.

Crimes Related to Posting Harmful Information on the Internet

The following crimes can be charged alongside or instead of PC Section 653.2 violations based on the specific facts surrounding the crime:

PC Section 647(j)(4), Revenge Porn

Revenge porn is legally referred to as nonconsensual pornography. You commit this crime when you intentionally distribute intimate recordings or images of someone else without their permission, intending to cause them emotional distress. Often, accused persons share these recordings or pictures out of revenge or anger after a breakup or any other personal conflict. If the alleged victim is a person considered a household member or domestic partner under Section 6211 of the Family Code, the crime is deemed domestic abuse.

Nonconsensual pornography is deemed a misdemeanor offense. The penalties following a conviction include a jail sentence of not more than six months and a court fine of not more than $1,000. These consequences are enhanced up to 12 months in custody and a fine not exceeding $2,000 if the following is factual:

• You have a single or multiple past revenge porn convictions or
• The victim in question was a child.

Revenge porn becomes a wobbler violation if the following is true:

• The involved victim was below 18 years old, and you were at least 18 years old
• It is your second or subsequent conviction

A wobbler is a crime that the prosecution can charge as either a misdemeanor or a felony, contingent on the defendant’s criminal history and the case facts. If found guilty of a misdemeanor, you will face up to 12 months in custody and a fine not exceeding $2,000. If convicted of a felony, you will be subject to sixteen months, two years, or three years in county jail under PC 1170(h) and a maximum of $10,000 in fines. Judges may impose informal probation rather than jail.

PC Section 646.9, Cyberstalking

Stalking entails threatening or harassing someone else to the point that they fear for their safety or that of their family members. Under PC Section 646.9, it is against the law to harass or follow someone else and make credible threats that reasonably cause them to fear for their safety. When this conduct occurs via electronic communication, such as text messages, social media platforms, or email, it is commonly known as cyberstalking.

When the cyberstalking victim is a cohabitant, spouse, ex-spouse, or somebody with whom you have or had an intimate relationship, the crime is deemed domestic abuse.

Cyberstalking is considered a wobbler offense. A misdemeanor violation is punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. On the other hand, a felony violation is punishable by a maximum of five years in prison, a fine of not more than $1,000, and a possible requirement to comply with sex offender registration for life. If you stalked the victim for sexual gratification or due to sexual compulsion. Also, if convicted of either a felony or misdemeanor, you may be subject to:

• A protective order forbidding any contact with the victim
• Counseling or potential confinement in a state-operated hospital that treats mental illness
• Mandatory participation in a 52-week batterers’ intervention program.

Find a Criminal Defense Attorney Near Me

If you have been arrested or charged with posting harmful content online, do not navigate the legal intricacies alone. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney for dedicated and effective representation and counsel. At CCLG: Los Angeles Criminal Attorney, we can provide the strategic defense and legal support necessary to safeguard your freedom, future, and reputation. We will develop a defense strategy aimed at having the charges reduced or dismissed, or the penalties mitigated. Call us at 323-922-3418 to set up a complimentary consultation with one of our experienced attorneys to discuss your case.