Paolo Galdieri : 4 November 2025 07:07
This is the third in a series of articles analyzing gender-based violence in the digital context, in anticipation of November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The focus here is on cyberstalking and its legal and social implications.
Cyberstalking represents one of the most subtle threats of the digital age. It’s not just a rehash of traditional stalking, but a behavior that exploits and amplifies the weaknesses of the virtual world. It’s a repetitive persecution carried out via electronic means, which profoundly undermines people’s privacy and individual freedom. The criminological analysis I offer in university classrooms and my direct experience in courtrooms confirm that this phenomenon possesses distinctive characteristics that make its harmful impact significantly greater. As a criminal lawyer, I’ve handled numerous cases where the digital element has transformed a conflict into a true existential crisis for the victim.
The online world offers the perpetrator several advantages that translate into greater harm for the victim. First, the ability to hide behind anonymity or create false identities (fake profiles) increases the victim’s sense of helplessness.
Second, the very nature of digital technology guarantees unlimited accessibility and permanence to offensive or threatening behavior. Distributed content not only has the potential to go viral in a matter of moments, but also leaves a persistent “digital footprint” that transcends the spatial and temporal boundaries of physical harassment. In my forensic practice, I have seen firsthand how victims are forced to defend the veracity of the data documenting their humiliation, prolonging the psychological damage well beyond the closure of the case.
A crucial element emerging from the court documents is that digital aggression isn’t confined to the virtual world. Cyberstalking exists on a continuum between the online and physical realms. The abuse inevitably “leaks into the victim’s physical world,” causing consequences ranging from psychological and financial harm to potentially physical or sexual harm.
Evidence confirms that online aggression is not a neutral phenomenon, but rather a reproduction that amplifies existing gender inequalities in society. Women and girls are systematically the preferred targets, attacked through a variety of forms, from explicit sexism, to body shaming , to slut shaming , to threats of sexual violence, even in immersive environments like the Metaverse.
The root of this aggression lies in a very specific intent: domination, control, and silencing. From a criminological perspective, which I analyze academically, the Internet is not merely a neutral tool, but a true catalyst that lowers the perpetrator’s perception of risk and moral dissonance. Physical distance encourages actions that would be difficult to carry out in real space.
The Italian legal system regulates stalking through Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code (Stalking), introduced in 2009. The law punishes anyone who, through repeated threatening or harassing behavior, causes one of three alternative events: a persistent and serious state of anxiety or fear; a well-founded fear for one’s own safety or that of a close relative; or a change in one’s lifestyle.
Despite the growing digital caseload, cyberstalking is not a separate crime. It is covered by paragraph 2 of the same law, which provides for increased penalties if the offense is committed “through the use of computer or telematic tools.” This provision was added in 2013 (through Legislative Decree 93/2013, converted into Law 119/2013) to address the spread of stalking via digital means.
The Red Code (Law 69/2019) has strengthened protections and increased penalties. However, a conceptual gap remains, as the Italian approach treats cyberstalking essentially as an aggravating circumstance that punishes the “how” of the crime, without addressing the specific harm of the “what” committed in terms of the permanent reputational and psychological damage generated by the internet.
Supreme court case law has progressively expanded and refined the notion of stalking in the digital context, focusing not so much on the instrument itself, but on its potential to harm the victim. For example, the Court of Cassation has clarified that the creation of fake Facebook profiles or internet accounts attributable to the victim is not in itself a crime of cyberstalking, but becomes so if the use of such profiles is suitable for repeated harassment, spreading defamatory messages or offensive images (Court of Cassation, Fifth Section, judgment no. 25533/23). In one emblematic case, stalking was recognized in the conduct of an ex-partner who created fake profiles in the victim’s name on social networks frequented by individuals seeking experiences, who contacted her believing her available for their own interests (Court of Cassation, Feral Section, judgment no. 36894/2015).
The Court also emphasized the impact of the internet’s diffusion capacity. The repeated posting of a former partner’s photograph on Facebook, for example, constitutes the crime of stalking, as it contributes to creating a climate that compromises the victim’s peace of mind and psychological freedom (Supreme Court, Fifth Section, judgment no. 10680/2022).
Another crucial aspect is the protection extended to relatives. The crime may also include conduct that does not directly affect the victim, but is indirectly directed at them, such as sending threatening text messages and voice messages to the couple’s son’s cell phone, which is deemed likely to reach the wife and cause her a serious and lasting state of anxiety (Cass., Section V, judgment no. 19531/2022). Finally, for the purposes of the continuity of the crime, it is irrelevant whether the victim attempts to stop the harassment by blocking and then unblocking the perpetrator’s phone service; this does not interrupt the habitual nature of the crime, where the conduct, assessed as a whole, is likely to cause one of the alternative events envisaged (Cass., Section V, judgment no. 44628/21).
For evidence to be fully usable in court to demonstrate the repetition of conduct typical of Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code, it is essential to guarantee the principles of data integrity and authenticity. In my role as defense counsel, I have observed that simple screenshots or paper printouts, while useful as evidence, have limited probative value when challenged in court. For example, a series of threats sent via Instagram Direct requires not only a copy of the message, but also a forensic technical acquisition ( digital forensic copy ). This process extracts the originality of the digital data, including essential metadata such as the exact time of sending, the type of device, and the unique identifier of the content, which are crucial to attributing the conduct to the perpetrator and demonstrating its seriality.
Effective victim protection depends on the adoption of high technical investigative standards. The lack of a uniform forensic investigative protocol, a topic I often address in my teaching practice, creates a high risk of evidentiary disputes over the accuracy of the evidence, forcing the victim to defend the veracity of the evidence and prolonging the psychological damage and sense of helplessness.
In cyberstalking, the damaging event is not always as tangible as physical injury, but is often found in the alteration of lifestyle habits. The Court of Cassation recognizes that the victim, due to persecution (for example, fake profiles that defame them in the workplace or threats disseminated publicly), may be forced to “modify their online and offline habits.” The act of closing social media profiles, changing phone numbers, or even changing jobs is the most objective evidence of actual intrusion into the private sphere and the renunciation of essential spaces in one’s relational and professional life, thus constituting the constitutive event of the crime.
Cyberstalking is confirmed not only as a technological aggravating factor for the crime of stalking, but also as a profound manifestation of gender-based violence, which exploits digital infrastructure to amplify its harmful effects and sense of domination. The current Italian approach, although strengthened by case law extending Article 612-bis of the Criminal Code to fake profiles and coercive messages, suffers from a dogmatic gap. The phenomenon is treated by punishing the “how”—the use of cyber tools—without fully addressing the “what” in terms of permanent reputational damage.
A real regulatory shift is imminent with the transposition of EU Directive 2024/1385, which will criminalize online stalking and cyber harassment as separate crimes. I believe this reform will be crucial to aligning our legislation, but it alone is not enough.
It is essential to standardize digital evidence acquisition methodologies (such as digital forensic copying ) from the early stages of reporting, reducing the evidentiary disputes that force the victim to relive the trauma to defend the authenticity of the data.
The root of cyberstalking is misogyny. Any regulatory intervention must be accompanied by a massive investment in education and awareness, starting in schools, to defuse the underlying sense of domination and control that fuels gender-based aggression.
Only by combining targeted criminal protection with impeccable investigative standards and a cultural revolution against sexism will it be possible to build an effective and lasting barrier against this insidious form of oppression.
Paolo Galdieri