Judicial reasoning on digital dignity harm: A comparative analysis of proportionality and functional harmonisation in criminal law
Keywords:
Digital Dignity Harm, Criminal Law, Proportionality Test, Freedom of Expression, Digital Environment, Human Dignity, Online HarmAbstract
Technological advancements in digital communications have led to an explosion of different forms of harm that present significant challenges to existing protections of human dignity found in the criminal laws of jurisdictions around the world. Conduct facilitated via technology can be distributed instantaneously; duplicated endlessly; and potentially magnified through technological infrastructure, converting one-off actions into continued and cumulative forms of harm. This raises questions about how to distinguish in the application of criminal law between protected forms of expression and those forms of conduct that are subject to criminal sanctions. In this paper we explore ways in which criminal law can effectively protect violations of dignity that occur in digital environments with the necessary safeguards for freedom of expression. We use comparative legal and doctrinal analysis to evaluate how judges reason about the proportionality principle as it relates to criminal liability for dignity violations caused by conduct that occurs in digital environments. We also develop a structured analytical framework – The Three-Step Test for Crimes Against Dignity in the Digital Environment — based on the principles of legality, legitimate purpose and proportionality contained in international human rights law. Our results demonstrate that increased methodological consistency in judicial reasoning will help provide greater clarity to criminal law responses to digital harms without compromising the diversity of constitutional protection across jurisdictions. Our research contributes to the current international discussion regarding the regulation of digital harm by demonstrating how structured analytical methods can facilitate the balanced and effective protection of human dignity in the digital environment.
Downloads
References
Alexy, R. (2002). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://books.google.com.ua/books/about/A_Theory_of_Constitutional_Rights.html?id=ZbWxWYhhe8UC&redir_esc=y (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality. Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139035293
Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616790 (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345–391. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2368946 (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Daly, E. (2021). Dignity Rights: Courts, Constitutions, and the Worth of the Human Person (REV-Revised). University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16qjxz7
Echr. (2023). HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-225814 (accessed on 16 August 2025).
EUROPEAN UNION (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of the European Union. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN: 9780199606726. Available at: https://books.google.com.ua/books/about/The_Fourth_Revolution.html?id=hOF_AwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Harrison, S. (2024). Towards a political concept of dignity. Political Research Exchange, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2024.2361163
Horák, F. (2022). Human dignity in legal argumentation: A functional perspective. European Constitutional Law Review, 18(2), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000141
Klatt, M., & Meister, M. (2012). The constitutional structure of proportionality. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001
Kumm, M. (2010). The idea of socratic contestation and the right to justification: The Point of Rights-Based Proportionality Review. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 4(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1047
Quackelbeen, L. (2026). Local labels of international crimes human dignity and fair labelling on trial. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale De Sémiotique Juridique. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-026-10445-6
Ricca, M. (2025). The stream of human dignity and its relational/generative account. Humanities & Law, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42439-025-00108-8
Richards, N. M., & Hartzog, W. (2019). Privacy’s constitutional moment. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3441502
Rivers, J. (2006). PROPORTIONALITY AND VARIABLE INTENSITY OF REVIEW. The Cambridge Law Journal, 65(1), 174–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197306007082
Stone Sweet, A., & Mathews, J. (2008). Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 47, 72–164. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1569344 (accessed on 16 August 2025).
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (2024). Analysis of legislation related to technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Available at: https://www.undp.org (accessed on 16 August 2025).
United Nations Development Programme, Analysis of Legislation Related to Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence, 2024. Available at: https://www.undp.org (accessed on 16 August 2025).
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2011). General Comment No. 34: Article 19 (Freedoms of opinion and expression). CCPR/C/GC/34. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/715606?v=pdf (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jbrjd (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Young, A. L. (2019). Democratic dialogue and proportionality. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(4), 1240–1260. Available at: https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/90863 (accessed on 16 August 2025).
Yusuff, G. A. (2025). Digital dignity under siege: How Nigeria’s data protection framework fails vulnerable populations. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5815663
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Olena Volobuieva, Viacheslav Shevchenko, Dmytro Rybka, Alla Adamovych, Mykhailo Taran
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have published with this journal, accept the following terms:
The authors cede all their copyrights to the magazine Cadernos de Dereito Actual, which will be in charge of disseminating and always quoting the author.
The authors agree not to send the article or publish it in another magazine.
The authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through the Internet (e.g., in institutional telematic archives or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase the number of citations of the published work, provided that reference is made to Cadernos de Dereito Actual.
All contents published in the magazine are protected under a "Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial" license. Everyone has the right to freely access the contents of the magazine.
