Duties of communicators

1. Intentionally causing harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation

You must not deliberately use threatening, abusive, insulting, sexual, or indecent words, behaviour, or communications online with the intention of causing another person harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation. This applies even if the harm is felt by someone other than the person you were targeting.

2. Cause harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation, even unintentionally

Even if you did not intend to cause harm, you must not use threatening, abusive, insulting, sexual, or indecent words, behaviour, or communications online if they are likely to cause another person harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation.

3. Fear, provocation or facilitation of violence

You must not use threatening, abusive, or insulting words, behaviour, or communications towards another person if you intend to make them fear that violence will be used against them, or if you intend to provoke violence by them or against them. This duty also applies even without such intent, if your words or actions are likely to cause someone to fear violence, or are likely to provoke it.

What is doxxing?

Doxxing is when someone publishes another person's identity information online without their consent, in a way that is intended to cause harm.

Examples of identity information are a person's:

• name;

• residential address;

• email address;

• telephone number;

• date of birth;

• NRIC number or passport number;

• signature, whether handwritten or electronic;

• password or identification code;

• any photograph or video recording of you; or

• information about your family, employment or education.

Under POHA, there are two key duties relating to doxxing.

1. Do not intentionally doxx someone to cause them harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation

You must not deliberately publish another person's identity information with the intention of causing them — or anyone connected to them — harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation. This applies even if the harm is ultimately felt by someone other than the person whose information was published.

2. Do not publish someone's identity information to threaten or facilitate violence

You must not publish another person's identity information if you intend to make them fear that violence will be used against them or someone else, or if you intend to facilitate such violence. This duty also applies if you knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that publishing the information was likely to cause someone to fear violence or make it easier for violence to occur.

Example

X posts Y's name and home address on an online forum and calls for others to "hunt him down and teach him a lesson". Y feels harassed and distressed. X has breached the duty not to doxx, as X has published Y's identity information in a way that is likely to cause Y to fear violence and to facilitate violence against Y.

What is online stalking?

Online stalking occurs when a perpetrator engages in a persistent course of conduct online that causes the victim harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation — and where the perpetrator either intended to cause such harm, or knew or ought reasonably to have known that their conduct was likely to do so.

Online stalking typically involves a pattern of behaviour over time, but can also involve a single act if the act is protracted. Examples of conduct associated with online stalking include:

• Repeatedly contacting the victim or someone close to them, or attempting to do so, through any online means — including messages, comments, or posts that relate to the victim or that falsely claim to come from the victim.

• Showing up in online spaces — whether public or private — that the victim or someone close to them frequents.

• Making your presence felt to the victim or someone close to them in any online location.

• Keeping the victim or someone close to them under surveillance online.

No single act on this list automatically amounts to online stalking. What matters is whether the conduct, taken as a whole, forms a course of behaviour that causes the victim harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation.

What is intimate image abuse?

Intimate image abuse occurs when someone shares, offers to sell or distribute, or advertises an intimate image or recording of another person without that person's consent, in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to cause the victim harassment, alarm, distress, or humiliation.

What counts as an intimate image or recording?

An intimate image or recording includes any image or recording — including one that has been altered or generated by any means, such as through artificial intelligence — that depicts:

• A person's genital or anal region, whether bare or covered by underwear;

• A woman's breasts, whether bare or covered by underwear; or

• A person doing a private act.

This includes images or recordings that have been digitally altered or artificially generated, as long as a reasonable person would believe the image depicts that person.

For more information, click here.

Defences

A person will not be liable for intimate image abuse if they can prove any of the following:

• Their conduct was reasonable in the circumstances;

• They had reasonable grounds to believe that the victim had consented to the sharing of the image or recording; or

• They did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the material they shared was an intimate image or recording.

These defences set a high threshold. It is not enough for a communicator to simply claim that they believed their conduct was reasonable, or that they thought the victim had consented. What matters is whether a reasonable person, considering all the circumstances objectively, would conclude that the defence is made out. A communicator's own account of their beliefs or intentions is therefore not, on its own, sufficient to establish a defence.

What is image-based child abuse?

Image-based child abuse occurs when someone shares, offers to sell or distribute, or advertises a child abuse image or recording. It also covers any material that appears to be designed or communicated in a way that could lead to such images or recordings being produced or shared — for example, grooming-type communications that solicit such material.

What counts as a child abuse image or recording?

A child abuse image or recording includes any image or recording — including one that has been altered or generated by any means, such as through artificial intelligence — of a person who is, appears to a reasonable person to be, or is implied to be below 16 years of age. This includes images or recordings that depict a child:

• As a victim of torture, cruelty, or physical abuse, whether or not the abuse is sexual in nature;

• As a victim of sexual abuse;

• Engaging in, or apparently engaging in, a sexual pose or sexual activity, whether or not in the presence of another person; or

• In the presence of another person who is engaging in, or apparently engaging in, a sexual pose or sexual activity.

It also includes images or recordings that depict a child's genital or anal region, or a female child's breasts — whether exposed or covered — where the depiction is sexual and in circumstances that a reasonable person would regard as offensive.

For more information, click here.

Defences

For an action to be commenced under OSRAA for image-based child abuse, the person depicted must be under the age of 16 at the time the image or recording was made.

A person will not be liable for image-based child abuse if they can prove either of the following:

• Their conduct was reasonable in the circumstances; or

• They did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the material they shared was a child abuse image or recording.

These defences set a high threshold. It is not enough for a communicator to simply assert that their conduct was reasonable or that they were unaware of the nature of the material. What matters is whether a reasonable person, considering all the circumstances objectively, would conclude that the defence is made out. A communicator's own account of their beliefs or intentions is therefore not, on its own, sufficient to establish a defence. It is also important to note that the victim's consent to the image or recording being shared is not a defence — the law recognises that children cannot meaningfully consent to the creation or distribution of such material.