Spreading rumours, “sexting” without mutual consent, cyber bullying with the motif of sex, sending damaging messages, photos or videos, and impersonation can fall under the realm of cybersexual harrasssment.
More serious is the increasing prevalence of group harassment or cyber-mobbing, where two or more people jointly taunt an individual. Gender harassment involves insulting and unpleasant remarks made to an individual, which is based on gender.
The two dissenting judges would have upheld the law, by striking out “or person” (thus limiting to minors), removing the “embarrassing …
photographs” and “hate mail,” and defining “no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose” as “the absence of expression of ideas or thoughts other than the mere abuse that the law proscribes.” But they didn’t explain how factfinders would distinguish “mere abuse” from, say, a Facebook post — or an e-mail to a friend — angrily condemning (1) an ex-boyfriend who cheated on you, or (2) the girl whom he cheated with, or (3) the classmate whom you saw cheating on a test.
Domestic violence has also been increasingly leveraging on social media and other tech tools to sexually harass their victims.
Dissemination of personal information, such as home addresses, phone numbers, credit card information and workplaces, without consent come under the purview of digital sexual assault as do graphic rape and death threats, threats to children and families, and threats to careers and communities, in exchange for favors.