Online harassment has evolved from Twitter mobs to an unexpected battleground: the courtroom. And the cost? Paid by taxpayers.
A Case in Point: The Courtroom Conundrum
On a rainy February morning last year, the usually quiet hallway outside Glasgow’s Employment Tribunal echoed only with the sounds of a solitary man rehearsing his case via video call. This man, John Robertson, styled himself as a modern-day crusader, a “whistleblower for the ages.” But his legal actions quickly unraveled when a judge dismissed his case for being “hopelessly out of time,” citing that Robertson had already waived his right to sue years earlier. The judge’s decision was swift, closing the file on what was a wasted effort.
Robertson, a self-proclaimed expert in “strategic thinking” and “crisis management,” had failed to meet a basic legal deadline— a mistake that seemed out of character for someone who publicly prides himself on his analytical abilities. His own paperwork, ironically, turned out to be the biggest threat to his case.
For taxpayers, this scenario isn’t just an isolated incident. It’s a costly trend. From court staff to security personnel, from document services to the judge’s time, every aspect of this frivolous case came at a price. And beyond the courtroom, Robertson’s online crusades have left reputational wreckage, from major audit firms to detectives, all of which come with an unseen financial toll.
Digital Harassers: The Courtroom’s New Breed
John Robertson may not be the only one with such a strategy. A new class of online provocateurs has emerged, learning to use the legal system to escalate online grudge matches. Their lawsuits, often doomed from the start, are less about seeking justice and more about causing chaos— incurring legal fees, damaging reputations, and halting business operations before the case is even thrown out.
In Robertson’s case, his online battles were merely stepping stones to a more aggressive strategy: dragging his critics into court. His digital tirades against figures as diverse as police chiefs, football club owners, and global consultants, often filled with baseless accusations, have made headlines. His method? Make wild accusations with scant evidence, and when questioned, claim to possess a hidden archive of files— files that have yet to surface.
It’s classic trolling: shout outrageous claims, provide no substantiation, and accuse anyone who challenges you of being part of a cover-up. The shift from internet slander to formal court filings has created a volatile mixture: damaging allegations under the guise of legal action. As one lawyer noted, Robertson is “a conspiracy theorist with delusions of grandeur.” Unfortunately, the harm done by his antics is all too real.
The Rise of Online Defamation and the High Stakes of Legal Warfare
This pattern isn’t unique to Robertson. Across the globe, individuals are exploiting legal systems for personal vendettas. Take Craig Wright, for example, who once claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the elusive creator of Bitcoin. When challenged, Wright didn’t back down— instead, he filed lawsuits against critics, dragging the matter through years of litigation at an immense cost. The legal battles became so intense that the court referred to his actions as “terrorising.” The individuals involved faced personal expenses in the tens of thousands, all because of a myth that had been debunked by cryptographic evidence.
Similarly, Tommy Robinson, known for his role in the English Defence League, used social media to build a following based on false claims about a Syrian refugee. When his accusations were proven wrong, the legal repercussions were significant— leading to a £100,000 libel judgment against him. But instead of retreating, Robinson monetized his missteps, using his legal troubles as a fundraising opportunity.
These individuals are not alone. A decade ago, the infamous Prenda Law firm in the U.S. perfected the art of “porn-trolling”— suing individuals for allegedly downloading pirated films, demanding massive settlements. The strategy was simple: use the threat of expensive statutory damages to force settlements, even from innocent individuals. This practice, akin to extortion, is now making its way into the realm of online defamation, with social media conspiracies replacing pirated content.
Why the Legal System Struggles to Keep Up
- The High Cost of Defense: Defending against a frivolous lawsuit is expensive, especially when it involves defamation. Legal fees for complex cases can exceed £500,000 before a trial even begins, forcing many to settle out of court to avoid bankruptcy.
- Amplification by Algorithms: Social media platforms can turn even the most baseless legal threats into viral stories. Once a lawsuit is filed, it often serves as content, spreading quickly across platforms, amplifying the troll’s message.
- Anonymity and Jurisdiction Shopping: Many trolls hide behind anonymous accounts and cross borders to evade legal action. Legal systems struggle to keep up with the speed at which online personas shift and how they manipulate international jurisdictions.
The Real Toll on People’s Lives
The human cost of this modern-day harassment is significant. Reputations, once carefully built, can be torn down in an instant. The speed at which online accusations spread means that a career can be ruined overnight. For many, the only recourse is expensive legal action, which the average person simply cannot afford.
Jamal Hijazi, the Syrian refugee wrongly accused by Tommy Robinson, was forced to flee his home and abandon his education. Bitcoin developers faced sleepless nights and crippling legal costs due to Craig Wright’s lawsuits. Even small businesses, like a Scottish security start-up, lost contracts after being smeared online by trolls like Robertson.
In the past, defamation was a slow burn— a process that took years to unfold. Today, Google’s cache updates in real-time, leaving little room for an innocent party to recover their reputation before a court can step in.
A Glimpse Into the Future: What Lies Ahead?
Back in the Glasgow courtroom, Robertson’s case is dismissed, his video call ending as the clerk turns off the lights. His paperwork is filed away, forgotten. But the harm lingers. In Google search results, in anonymous memes, in the taxpayer ledger, the consequences continue to be felt.
As more trolls learn how to weaponize the legal system, the question remains: how much longer will we, as a society, be willing to bear the financial and emotional costs of these digital crusaders?
