Imagine being relentlessly harassed online, with your personal information exposed to the world. Then, when you turn to the police for help, you’re met with a shocking response: your emails, containing crucial evidence of the abuse, are rejected because their servers can’t handle “explicit content.” This isn’t a fictional nightmare—it’s the real story of Jane (not her real name), a mother from the UK, whose trust in the system was shattered at every turn.
A case of harassment which was allowed to spiral out of control
Jane’s ordeal began innocuously, within the local community of her child’s school. What started as a personal grievance by another parent, we shall call Sonya, turned into a digital witch hunt. Sonya accused several parents and teachers of heinous crimes, claiming they were part of a paedophile ring operating within the school. These allegations, while shocking, were completely unfounded. Nevertheless, they triggered a full investigation by the authorities.
To everyone’s dismay, the investigation didn’t uncover any wrongdoing by the accused parents or teachers. Instead, it revealed something far more disturbing: Sonya’s own children were being abused by their stepfather, a situation Sonya had allegedly been aware of but did not stop. The revelations should have brought an end to the false accusations, but they didn’t. Instead, Sonya doubled down on her claims, taking her campaign to the internet.
An online petition turns into a weapon of harassment
Sonya’s next move was to create an online petition. Its central claim? That the school and the police were colluding to cover up abuse. Though it lacked any basis in reality, the petition spread like wildfire, gaining thousands of signatures from unsuspecting individuals who believed they were supporting a worthy cause. As the petition grew in popularity, so did its collateral damage.
In a particularly chilling act, Sonya published a document filled with personal information about the accused. Names, addresses, occupations, and even the children’s schools were listed. Jane’s details were among them. This document acted like a beacon for trolls, vigilantes, and other malicious individuals, leading to a deluge of harassment.
Jane’s once-private world was turned upside down. Strangers sent threatening messages, called her home, and even visited her business. Fearing for her safety and her family’s well-being, Jane did what most people would: she went to the police for help.
Police shocking response to an obvious case of online harassment
Initially, Jane found a glimmer of hope. The officer she first spoke to understood the seriousness of online harassment and assured her the matter would be treated with urgency. However, because the harassment crossed regional boundaries, the case was passed to another police force. That’s when things started to unravel.
The officers in the new jurisdiction didn’t seem to grasp the gravity of online harassment. Jane was met with confusion and scepticism when she tried to explain the situation. And then came the final insult: when Jane attempted to email evidence of the harassment—screenshots of the abusive messages and the online petition—the police servers blocked her emails. Their reason? The content of the evidence was deemed “too explicit.”
This left Jane in a cruel bind. How was she supposed to prove her case if the very system meant to protect her couldn’t even receive her evidence? The officers offered no alternatives, leaving her feeling abandoned by those she had trusted to help her.
The biggest problem with policing the internet
Jane’s experience is not an isolated incident. It underscores a much larger problem with how the criminal justice system handles internet-related crimes. Despite the ever-growing role of the internet in our lives, many police forces remain woefully underprepared to address crimes that occur online. Whether it’s a lack of technical expertise, inadequate resources, or outdated systems like email servers rejecting “explicit content,” victims are too often left without support.
Online harassment is not just “digital drama.” It has real-world consequences. Victims like Jane face threats to their safety, mental health, and livelihoods. Yet, the systems designed to protect them are lagging behind, stuck in a pre-digital mindset.
The issue is compounded by the decentralised nature of online crimes. Jurisdictional confusion, as in Jane’s case, means that perpetrators can exploit gaps in the system to evade accountability. And with technology evolving at breakneck speed, it’s clear that police forces need more training, resources, and modern infrastructure to keep up.
How the policing of the internet must change
The first step is recognising online harassment for what it is: a serious crime that can destroy lives. Police officers need training to understand the digital landscape and its potential for harm. This includes everything from recognising the signs of online abuse to knowing how to handle and store digital evidence without dismissing it as “inappropriate.”
Second, there needs to be an overhaul of the systems police use to handle online crime. If a victim’s evidence is too explicit for a server, that’s not a sign to reject it—it’s a sign that the system needs upgrading. A victim’s ability to report abuse should never be hindered by outdated technology.
Finally, there must be clear accountability and communication within the justice system. Victims like Jane should never have to navigate a maze of jurisdictional red tape while fearing for their safety.
A word of advice for victims of online harassment
For victims of online harassment, Jane’s story is both harrowing and familiar. It’s a stark reminder of how far we still have to go in adapting our justice systems to the realities of the digital age. But it’s also a call to action.
As a society, we need to demand better. Better systems, better training, and better support for victims. Because no one should ever feel that their safety is less important than a server’s ability to process an email.
Jane’s story is a sobering tale, but it’s also a rallying cry. Let’s ensure that no one else has to face what she did.