Threats

Section 422 criminalizes threats made to another that are likely to result in death or great bodily injury.36 Section 422 encompasses conduct directed at one specifically identified person. Moreover, it requires an actual intent to commit a specific type of harm.38 This statute does not address the situation of cyberbullying in which one person might post disparaging comments about another on the Internet but does not explicitly threaten to harm that person.

Annoying phone calls

Penal Code 653m(a)

(a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

A single use of obscene language or threats.

Penal Code 653m(b)

(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

PC653m(b) required repeated telephone conduct.

Stalking

Section 646.9 requires a willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment of another, coupled with a credible threat with an intent to place that person or their family in reasonable fear for their safety. This statute requires that an actual threat of harm be made; malicious teasing or bullying will not suffice.

Doxxing

People v. Shivers (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th Supp. 8 The tweets posted on July 4, 2012, and July 8, 2012, which were the basis for the Penal Code section 653.2 charge, stated, respectively, “HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY EVERYONE. SEE YOU ON MY USUAL HANGOUT, CAHUENGA!! (If you see my stalker Pauley Perrette follow me there call LAPD!!!)” and “Speakin of # Cahuenga i'll be there 2nite as usual. If you see my stalker # NCIS Pauley Perrette follow me there report her to LAPD immediately!” (Original capitalization.)

The plain meaning of the words used reveals no requirement that actual incitement or actual production of the enumerated unlawful effects be caused by a person's electronic distribution of a message. The only requirement is that a defendant's message is likely to incite or produce third party actions. People v. Shivers (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th Supp. 8, 13.

“One, the defendant by means of an electronic communication device and acted [sic ] without the consent of [Perrette] electronically distributed or published an electronic message of a harassing nature; and [¶] Two, the defendant electronically distributed or published the electronic **358 message about [Perrette] for the purpose of imminently causing [Perrette] unwanted physical contact or injury or harassment by a third party; and [¶] Three, the defendant distributed the electronic message and a reasonable person would consider that electronic message likely to incite or produce unwanted physical contact, injury or harassment by a third party; and [¶] Four, the defendant at the time of the electronic distribution of the electronic message acted with the intent to place [Perrette] in reasonable fear for her safety or safety of her immediate family.”

Section 653.2 makes it a misdemeanor for any person who--with intent to place another person or their immediate family in reasonable fear for their safety by means of an electronic communication device and for the purpose of imminently causing unwanted harassment--electronically distributes, publishes, emails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or a harassing message about another person, which would likely incite or produce unlawful action. Section 653.2 is too narrow to cover all cyberbullying-type conduct because it requires the dissemination of personal identifying information and is really just a modification of the existing California criminal stalking statute to prohibit “the type of harassment that has become all to[o] commonplace in this digital age, harassment committed using e-mail, cell phone, or some other electronic communication device.” The purpose of section 653.2 is to “simply [[close] an electronic loophole in the stalking statute and [give] law enforcement the ability to hold accountable those who would prey on victims using electronic means.”

Online impersonation

Penal Code 528.5

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).