How can I stop someone I know from harassing me online? My ex partner keeps making new accounts on Instagram and Facebook to message me. I’ve sent them a text with a read receipt that states clearly: don’t contact me on any platform, don’t text me, don’t call me etc. They even had a mutual person call me when they were with them. I’ve blocked every single account and I haven’t replied to any messages since telling them not to contact me again. I have proof of everything. The messages are not threatening and this has been going on for less than a month but they have done similar to their previous partner for 9 months and I suspect that they may not leave me alone for the next year. I want to do something that will force them not to contact me online- and force them not to have other people contact me on their behalf if possible. How can I stop this from happening? I’m happy to accept an answer that requires them to voluntarily sign something.
Citizens Advice in the UK has some great advice pages on dealing with harassment, but your options are limited - you can't actually stop someone from contacting you, but you can make their actions have consequences. Try contacting the police, who may speak to the individual in question and that may be enough to stop the harassment, or you can try applying for an injunction against the person in court (commonly called a restraining order). If the person breaches the injunction, then it can become a criminal matter.
By which law I am enforced to share my personal details (such as my full name) on forum publicly to on-line people which I even don't know (when commenting on random posts)? Contract Law. Google have made it a term of the contract that you use your full name. You can: contact Google and negotiate a change to that term, accept that term, choose not to enter the contract. so I can enforce on my privacy rights without removing my Google Plus account? As a person subject to UK law, your privacy rights involve limiting who and in what circumstances Google can divulge personal private information to. Your name is not personal private information; things like your medical history and bank balance are. Aside from that, you do not have a right to privacy. Anything you do or say that is visible or audible from a public place (like the internet) or a private place where the person in control of that place does not insist on your privacy (i.e. almost everywhere that you are not in control of) is public!
This may not be the answer that you're looking for, but my mother always told me the best way to take control of a conversation is to ask a question. Am I under investigation? Did you just try and interrogate me without reading me my Miranda Rights? I'm not contracted with your organization, so what are your intentions?
No. You need to actively be given permission for you to have permission. If they don't reply you don't have permission and are violating their ToS.
In the united-states, those actions would be fully protected by the First Amendment. Andy has a constitutional right to speak freely about essentially whatever he wants -- including Mary's criminal conduct -- unless his speech falls into one of several narrowly defined categories, none of which would apply in this case. And because Mary has already put this information out on the Internet, it is likely not sufficiently private to support an invasion-of-privacy claim. However, the unfortunate reality is that complainants, police, prosecutors, and judges frequently ignore First Amendment protections. Indeed, many states have laws against &quot;cyberstalking&quot; and &quot;telecommunications harassment&quot; that are incredibly broad, and that clearly apply to conduct protected by the First Amendment. For instance, Ohio's telecommunications harassment statute makes it a crime to send an e-mail &quot;with purpose to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.&quot; This means that many people who engage in First Amendment-protected speech end up getting prosecuted anyway. If they pay for a good lawyer who knows how to properly raise a First Amendment defense, they may escape any penalties. But because most defendants do not have those resources, and because many lawyers are unaware of the First Amendment implications of such prosecutions, most defendants in such situations likely end up being convicted despite behaving perfectly legally. In the united-kingdom, though, the situation is very different. Even if Mary is breaking the law, and even if Andy limits himself to strictly factual information about what's he's learned about her conduct, he may still be held civilly liable. Mary may also be able to pursue Andy criminally for harassment if his e-mail causes her substantial emotional distress, and civilly for &quot;harassment by publication.&quot; The fact that this information is already public is likely not going to go very far in changing the analysis. Andy's best course of action is therefore to play it safe by keeping his mouth shut. Doing so has both legal and nonlegal benefits: He avoids exposure to the hassles of defending himself from criminal charges and he gets some time to examine the resentment, jealousy, paranoia that makes him want to humiliate his &quot;friend.&quot;
An individual does not have authority to "issue" a restraining order. In the U.S. only judges can issue such orders. The guidelines and policies for obtaining a restraining order vary by jurisdiction, although in the end a judge can issue any order he wants. So in theory you might be able to find a judge who will issue an order for any or no reason. In practice I'd be surprised if many judges would abuse their office to gratuitously harass people in this fashion, though there are probably a few amusing/disturbing examples out there to the contrary.
The purpose of that disclaimer is not to prevent reprimands or legal action. It's really as simple as it appears -- it's to inform the readers that the tweets in fact contain the opinion of the person who wrote them and are not intended to be understood as the official position as that person's employer. This is especially important for people who occasionally or frequently convey their employer's official position. It's not supposed to be some kind of magic word that causes something to happen. It's just an attempt to convey accurate information and avoid misunderstandings.
The title asks about double jeopardy, but the the body seems to be asking about statute of limitations, which is a separate issue. If an argument regarding timeliness is made by John, it likely will not be based on a statute of limitations. If Jane is asking for a restraining order, she will have to show a high likelihood of harm. If further actions have occurred recently, then any statute of limitations would not apply. If four years have gone by without any further actions by John, then Jane is unlikely to convince a judge that harm is imminent. Restraining orders are not supposed to be punitive, but preventative, thus the concept of statutes of limitations generally does not apply; as they are supposed to be used to prevent imminent harm, only the current situation is considered. Long-past actions are relevant only as to interpretation of current facts. One does not get a restraining order "for" violent acts done against one; one gets a restraining order to prevent future acts, and uses previous violent acts as evidence of the likelihood of those acts. Asking a court to protect oneself from someone who has not been in one's life for four years is unlikely to go over well.