Harassment Ruling On Facebook Post Is Upheld by Court

Cox was 18 at the time, and the teenager who Cox made the comment about was 15 at the time and had just started her first day of 10th grade, according to the opinion.

A person commits the crime of harassment if, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, they communicate “'to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures,'” according to the opinion.

“Contrary to Cox's view and in light of the totality of the evidence, her misuse of the Internet and social media was criminal,” Donohue said. “The evidence of record establishes that Cox posted a statement indicating that victim suffered from a sexually transmitted disease on an online forum, and that this statement was viewed by multiple people.

“We conclude that this is sufficient to support a finding that Cox communicated lewd sentiments about victim to other people, and an inference that in doing so it was her intent to harass, annoy or alarm victim.”

Elizabeth Judd of the Lebanon County Public Defender's Office said that her office would appeal the decision.

While Judd said she doesn't condone her client's behavior, she said that posting was only up for an hour and that she does not believe that her client's action rises to the level of the crime of harassment.

The criminal charge was “overboard in this particular case,” Judd said.

The trial judge noted that the post used the victim's full name and the post was available to friends of friends, Donohue said.

“Cox's conduct was the type of conduct the legislature sought to criminalize under the harassment statute supporting her conviction,” according to the opinion.

The court also rejected the defense argument that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

“To the extent that Cox argues that victim's emotional testimony led the jury to return a verdict that is otherwise unsupported by the evidence, we also disagree, as we have already found that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict,” Donohue said. “While Cox expressed remorse for the ill-conceived but intentionally harmful posting on Facebook, the jury assessed the evidence and found the publication on the Internet was criminal harassment.”

In a footnote, the panel said that there was no evidence that Cox posted the comment for any other purpose than for harassment, annoyance or to cause alarm to the victim.

Amaris Elliott-Engel is a Reproter for The Legal Intelligencer, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.

Posting a sexually insulting comment on the Facebook social media network constitutes the crime of harassment, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled in upholding a teenage woman's criminal conviction.

Judge Christine L. Donohue, writing for the unanimous panel of Judge John T. Bender and Senior Judge Eugene B. Strassburger III last month, said that defendant Lindsey Marie Cox committed the crime of harassment when she posted a comment on her Facebook page that the victim “has herpes. Ew, that's gross. She should stop spreading her legs like her mother.”

Several of Cox's Facebook friends liked her post, according to the opinion.

Cox was 18 at the time, and the teenager who Cox made the comment about was 15 at the time and had just started her first day of 10th grade, according to the opinion.

A person commits the crime of harassment if, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, they communicate “'to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures,'” according to the opinion.

“Contrary to Cox's view and in light of the totality of the evidence, her misuse of the Internet and social media was criminal,” Donohue said. “The evidence of record establishes that Cox posted a statement indicating that victim suffered from a sexually transmitted disease on an online forum, and that this statement was viewed by multiple people.

“We conclude that this is sufficient to support a finding that Cox communicated lewd sentiments about victim to other people, and an inference that in doing so it was her intent to harass, annoy or alarm victim.”

Elizabeth Judd of the Lebanon County Public Defender's Office said that her office would appeal the decision.

While Judd said she doesn't condone her client's behavior, she said that posting was only up for an hour and that she does not believe that her client's action rises to the level of the crime of harassment.

The criminal charge was “overboard in this particular case,” Judd said.

The trial judge noted that the post used the victim's full name and the post was available to friends of friends, Donohue said.

“Cox's conduct was the type of conduct the legislature sought to criminalize under the harassment statute supporting her conviction,” according to the opinion.

The court also rejected the defense argument that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

“To the extent that Cox argues that victim's emotional testimony led the jury to return a verdict that is otherwise unsupported by the evidence, we also disagree, as we have already found that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict,” Donohue said. “While Cox expressed remorse for the ill-conceived but intentionally harmful posting on Facebook, the jury assessed the evidence and found the publication on the Internet was criminal harassment.”

In a footnote, the panel said that there was no evidence that Cox posted the comment for any other purpose than for harassment, annoyance or to cause alarm to the victim.

Amaris Elliott-Engel is a Reproter for The Legal Intelligencer, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy.