The empirical evidence is damning. According to a March 2024 WHO Europe report, one in six school-aged children in Europe has experienced cyberbullying, with the prevalence rate rising notably since 2018. In South Korea, a 2023 government-backed study revealed that over 40 percent of students had encountered some form of cyber violence, with 21.6 percent reporting themselves as victims who had not reciprocated the behavior. Meanwhile, the University of Edinburgh has found that over 300 million children are victims of online sexual exploitation and abuse every year. These statistics do not merely reveal trends, they expose the structural gaps in protection and the inertia within many legal systems to respond to crimes perpetrated in the digital realm.

Digital violence is not geographically limited, but its impact is felt more harshly in jurisdictions that lack adequate legal frameworks. A comparative glance reveals stark differences in how countries address digital abuse. In South Africa, the Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020 introduces clear criminal liability for cyber harassment and threats disseminated via electronic communication. The legislation is an example of a forward-thinking model that aims to curb technology-facilitated violence. In contrast, Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act of 2015 does not yet include comprehensive provisions for online harassment or cyberbullying, making it difficult for victims—particularly children and women, to obtain justice. The absence of tailored legal remedies has been criticized by Nigerian scholars and legal practitioners alike, who argue that legislative reform is overdue.

Europe, while more progressive in legal protections, has also seen its fair share of judicial failures. A landmark case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2021—Buturugă v. Romania—illustrates both the scope of the problem and the legal awakening to its gravity. The applicant, a survivor of domestic violence, alleged that her former husband had accessed her online accounts, downloaded private conversations, and used them to humiliate her. Romania’s national authorities failed to investigate the digital aspects of her complaint. The ECtHR found that Romania had violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, holding that digital abuse should be treated with the same seriousness as physical and psychological abuse within domestic violence frameworks. The case has since set a precedent for the inclusion of cyberviolence within the broader protective scope of human rights law.

Another illustrative example comes from France. In early 2024, a court convicted fourteen individuals of cyberbullying French influencer Magali Berdah. This case was notable not only because of the number of individuals prosecuted but also due to the severity of the sentences—some were given prison terms, while others received suspended sentences and financial penalties. This case has since been referred to as France’s largest anti-cyberbullying ruling to date and is emblematic of a growing international consensus: that online conduct must be treated with the same gravity as real-world violence.

In the United States, legal doctrine has evolved to address the intersection between digital speech and school safety. In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case JS v. Bethlehem Area School District, a student was expelled for creating a website that contained threatening and defamatory statements about a teacher. The court held that the First Amendment did not protect speech that caused substantial disruption in the educational environment. While American jurisprudence continues to grapple with the boundaries between free speech and harmful conduct, this case reflects a growing acknowledgment of the legal system’s role in adjudicating digital harm.

Yet even as some legal systems begin to rise to the challenge, the global trend is uneven. In countries where rates of digital violence are decreasing—such as the Netherlands, Finland, and parts of Canada, the common denominator is not merely stricter law but the combination of robust legal education, timely enforcement, digital literacy programs, and victim-centered support services. Legal systems alone are insufficient unless paired with accessible reporting mechanisms, psychological support structures, and a public discourse that treats online abuse as a societal, not just private—failure.

What makes digital violence particularly insidious is its permanence and reach. Unlike physical harm, which may be isolated or time-bound, digital abuse often follows the victim indefinitely through search engines, archived screenshots, or anonymous re-uploads. In cases of image-based abuse,also called non-consensual pornography, the harm is multiplied every time the content is shared, re-uploaded, or discussed. The legal doctrine must evolve to recognize this compounding effect.

From a human rights perspective, states have positive obligations to protect individuals not only from state actors but also from private actors who use technology to harm others. These obligations arise under various international instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention, and even regional charters like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These instruments impose duties on states to prevent, investigate, and punish all forms of gender-based violence—digital or otherwise.

In light of the empirical data and jurisprudence surveyed, it is clear that digital violence should be treated not as a fringe issue but as central to the legal and human rights discourse of the 21st century. Lawmakers must act decisively to update legal codes, develop technology-specific criminal statutes, and ensure that justice is not only theoretical but real and reachable for victims. This includes fostering collaborations between legal experts, digital platforms, civil society, and survivors.

Only by grounding our responses in evidence, aligning them with human rights principles, and holding perpetrators accountable through legal means can we begin to reverse the global tide of digital violence.