It is fairly common to hear about internet crimes these days. And it seems as if any time a person feels he or she has been teased or annoyed through the internet, the claim is made that the person is the victim of cyberstalking. In Arizona, many people confuse harassment and stalking, but there are significant differences between the two.
Stalking or Harassment?
The differences between harassment and stalking – cyber- or otherwise – are far more important than language and semantics. Here are the basics of the two crimes:
- Harassment. You commit harassment if, intending to harass a person, you communicate in a manner that would cause the other person to be seriously alarmed or annoyed, and which in fact causes the person to be seriously alarmed or annoyed. For our purposes, it includes, among other modes of communication, electronic means such as email or contacts through social media. As a general rule, harassment is a misdemeanor. Felony harassment (including aggravated harassment) consists of harassment where (a) the victim is a public officer or employee, (b) the harassment constitutes a violation of an existing protective order, or (c) you have a prior conviction for a domestic violence offense.
- Stalking. The essence of stalking is intentionally creating fear of physical harm, property damage or death through a “course of conduct.” As in the case of harassment, stalking can be accomplished through electronic communications such as email, Facebook, etc. Stalking is always a felony.
If you read the definitions of the two offenses, and think about the circumstances that fall within them, you’ll probably come to the conclusion that the two statutes overlap. They do. Furthermore, since they both an analysis of what is in the mind of the defendant as well as the alleged victim, you’ll also realize that, except in the most obvious cases, a conviction can be based upon very little in the way of physical evidence.
Incidentally, there have been challenges to these laws on a number of constitutional grounds, including being vague and overly broad, as well as an infringement upon the First Amendment right to free speech. The Arizona courts have rejected these claims thus far.
Law Offices of David A. Black
40 North Central Avenue #1850
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(480) 280-8028