Online Harassment Extends Beyond Social Media to Courtrooms

Time Business News

25-06-2025

Online harassment has taken a new form — from Twitter spats to courtroom battles, with taxpayers footing the bill.
In a cold February last year, a quiet morning outside Glasgow's Employment Tribunal building was interrupted by a man joining a court hearing via video call. John Robertson, who has portrayed himself as a whistleblower, found himself facing the legal consequences of his actions. His lawsuit, which had been dismissed earlier for missing deadlines, was finally thrown out. Robertson had previously signed away his rights to sue, a fact that he overlooked. This case, although dismissed, cost taxpayers as court resources were used and the reputations of several individuals and organizations were tarnished.
Robertson's story is not unique. In fact, he is part of a growing trend where digital provocateurs turn social media feuds into legal battles, often at the expense of others. These lawsuits may be dismissed early on, but the reputational damage is often irreversible. Legal fees, cancelled contracts, and public shaming are the immediate consequences, long before any judge makes a final ruling.
Robertson's legal troubles are a direct result of his online behavior. Banned from platforms like LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) for violating terms of service, Robertson resorted to court threats. His posts, which accuse public figures and organizations of serious crimes with little to no evidence, are often met with defamation lawsuits. Despite being labelled as a conspiracy theorist, Robertson's actions continue to harm those he targets.
His case is emblematic of the new kind of online harassment, where malicious claims are made under the guise of legal action. A prominent barrister described Robertson's tactics as attempts to use the courtroom as a platform for harassment. The real issue isn't the frivolous lawsuits but the damage caused by these baseless accusations in the public eye.
Robertson isn't alone in exploiting the courtroom for personal vendettas. Another example is Craig Wright, who claimed to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. When his claims were questioned, Wright filed lawsuits against critics, including developers and podcasters. After years of costly litigation, his claim was debunked, but not before leaving behind a trail of legal costs and reputational damage.
Similarly, Tommy Robinson, the founder of the far-right English Defence League, turned a personal altercation into a defamation campaign against a Syrian refugee. Robinson's accusations were proven false, and he was ordered to pay substantial damages. His subsequent fundraising efforts to cover legal fees only perpetuated the cycle of defamation.
In the U.S. and U.K., the growing use of lawsuits as a tool for digital harassment is forcing the legal system to deal with new challenges. Defamation suits are often costly, and the financial burden falls on those targeted, even if they eventually win their case. Legal experts estimate that it can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend against a complex defamation case.
The digital age has made it easier for these trolls to amplify their claims. Social media platforms spread outrage quickly, while laws like Section 230 in the U.S. and the 'mere conduit' defense in the U.K. allow platforms to avoid responsibility. This has led to a situation where anyone can make accusations without consequence, and the truth is only revealed after expensive and lengthy legal battles.
The speed at which online reputations are damaged today is unprecedented. A single accusation can have long-term effects on a person's career, even if proven false. Google updates its cache in minutes, and once a claim is made, it can be difficult to remove the traces of reputational harm. For many, especially those who cannot afford extensive legal battles, the burden of proof is often on the victim.
This form of harassment isn't confined to the U.K. and U.S. Around the world, individuals and companies are increasingly finding themselves in courtrooms due to online defamation. Some have even turned to courts as a way to silence critics, with the hope of using the legal process to delay or prevent further scrutiny.
John Robertson's case may be closed, but the damage remains. For the public, the cost of these legal battles continues to rise, and the question remains: who will pay for the price of online harassment turned litigation?
TIME BUSINESS NEWS