What is online harassment of a minor under Texas law?
Texas has no standalone “cyberbullying” offense. Online harassment of a minor is charged under Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) — sending repeated electronic communications reasonably likely to harass, annoy, or alarm. It is a Class B misdemeanor, raised to Class A under David’s Law when a child under 18 is targeted.
Texas does not have a standalone “cyberbullying” or “social-media violation” offense in the Penal Code. When a teenager is harassed through Snapchat, Instagram, group texts, Discord, or any other platform, the prosecutor reaches for the general harassment statute, Penal Code § 42.07. Subsection (a)(7) is the part that fits online conduct: a person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, the person “sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.”
The statute defines “electronic communication” broadly under § 42.07(b)(1): a transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence transmitted by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. That language is deliberately wide. It reaches direct messages, comments, repeated posts that tag the target, mass texts, and content sent through apps the statute’s drafters had never heard of. A 2025 decision describes the reach plainly: the gravamen of the offense “is the sending of repeated electronic communications,” and the statute “is equally violated by the repeated sending of communications containing expressive speech as it is by the repeated sending of communications containing no speech at all.” Earl v. State, No. 03-23-00427-CR (Tex. App.—Austin June 27, 2025).
Two words in the statute do the heavy lifting and are where most cases are won or lost: repeated and reasonably likely. A single cruel post, even a vicious one, is generally not “repeated.” And the communications must be sent in a manner reasonably likely to produce one of the listed reactions — an objective standard the State cannot satisfy with the complainant’s subjective hurt feelings alone. This is the practical reason that the same fact pattern can produce a charge in one county and a declination in another.
What is David’s Law and the under-18 enhancement?
David’s Law (Senate Bill 179, 2017) amended § 42.07 to add electronic harassment and an under-18 Class A enhancement, created a civil injunction track under Education Code § 37.0832, and imposed school anti-bullying duties. The criminal enhancement applies only when a child under 18 is targeted with intent toward suicide or serious self-harm.
The reason the words “minor” and “social media” attach to this statute at all is David’s Law. In 2017 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 179 after the suicide of 16-year-old David Molak, a San Antonio teenager who was relentlessly harassed online. SB 179 did three different things, and clients routinely confuse them:
- It amended § 42.07
- The bill added subsection (a)(7) — harassment by electronic communication — and built in a heightened grade when the victim is a child. Before David’s Law, the harassment statute was aimed mostly at telephone calls.
- It created a civil injunction track
- Under Education Code § 37.0832 and related Civil Practice and Remedies Code provisions, a parent can seek a court injunction against a child who is cyberbullying their child. That is a civil order — it is not a criminal conviction and is handled in a different courtroom.
- It imposed school-district duties
- Districts must adopt cyberbullying policies, notify parents, and provide counseling referrals. The school-discipline track runs on its own timeline, independent of any criminal or juvenile case.
The criminal enhancement is the part that raises the stakes. Under § 42.07(c), the offense climbs from a Class B to a Class A misdemeanor if it is committed under subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8) against a child under 18 years of age with the intent that the child (i) commit suicide, or (ii) engage in conduct causing serious bodily injury to the child. This is a narrow, intent-specific enhancement. It is not triggered merely because the complainant happens to be 17. The State has to prove the defendant intended to drive a specific child toward suicide or self-harm — a demanding mental-state showing that is frequently the weakest link in the prosecution’s case.
What must the State prove?
To convict on the base § 42.07(a)(7) charge, the State must prove repeated electronic communications, specific intent to harass, and a manner reasonably likely to harass — all beyond a reasonable doubt. The David’s Law enhancement adds the child’s under-18 age and a specific intent toward suicide or serious self-injury. Authorship is the unspoken fifth element.
To convict on the base § 42.07(a)(7) charge, the prosecutor must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Repeated electronic communications
- More than one message, sent by an electronic system. “Repeated” is doing real work — isolated incidents do not qualify, and the State must connect each message to the accused.
- Specific intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass
- A culpable mental state under Penal Code § 6.03. The communications must be sent for the purpose of producing one of those reactions, not merely with the effect of doing so.
- Manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend
- An objective component judged by how the messages were sent — volume, timing, persistence — not solely by how the recipient felt.
- For the David’s Law enhancement: victim under 18 + intent toward suicide or serious self-injury
- Two additional facts. The State must prove both the child’s age and the defendant’s specific intent that the child commit suicide or engage in conduct causing serious bodily injury to themselves.
Identity is the unspoken fifth element. Online accounts are shared, spoofed, and hacked. Before any of the substantive elements matter, the State has to prove the defendant — not a sibling, a friend with the password, or an impersonator — actually sent the messages. In teen cases, where phones and logins pass freely among a friend group, authorship is often genuinely disputed.
What are the penalties?
The grade turns on the victim’s age, the defendant’s intent, and prior history. Base § 42.07(a)(7) is a Class B misdemeanor (up to 180 days, $2,000). A prior conviction or the David’s Law under-18 enhancement raises it to Class A (up to 1 year, $4,000). The two enhancements do not stack into a felony.
The grade turns on the victim’s age, the defendant’s intent, and prior history. The table below sets out the current ranges under Penal Code §§ 42.07(c) and 12.21–12.22.
| Scenario | Classification | Jail / confinement | Maximum fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base § 42.07(a)(7) electronic harassment | Class B misdemeanor | Up to 180 days, county jail | Up to $2,000 |
| Prior § 42.07 conviction | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year, county jail | Up to $4,000 |
| David’s Law — victim under 18, intent toward suicide / serious self-injury | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year, county jail | Up to $4,000 |
| Accused is under 17 (juvenile) | Delinquent conduct (juvenile court) | Disposition under the Family Code, not adult jail | N/A |
Two points worth flagging. First, even the base offense is a Class B misdemeanor that can carry jail and a permanent record — it is not a ticket. Second, the David’s Law enhancement and the prior-conviction enhancement both land at Class A; they do not stack into a felony. If you see a felony number on a charging instrument arising from the same conduct, it almost always reflects a different statute being charged alongside § 42.07, such as online impersonation, stalking, or making a terroristic threat.
How is this different from § 33.07 and § 33.021?
Social-media conduct involving a minor can fall under several statutes that are not interchangeable. Section 42.07 is about repeated sending; § 33.07 online impersonation is about identity; § 33.021 online solicitation is about sexual purpose; § 21.16 covers nonconsensual intimate images. Getting the charge correctly classified is one of the first defense tasks.
Social-media conduct involving a minor can fall under several statutes, and they are not interchangeable. Getting the charge correctly classified is one of the first defense tasks, because the wrong label carries the wrong penalty range and the wrong collateral consequences.
| Statute | What it targets | Typical grade |
|---|---|---|
| § 42.07(a)(7) — electronic harassment (this page) | Repeated messages reasonably likely to harass/alarm; gravamen is the repeated sending | Class B; Class A under David’s Law |
| § 33.07 — online impersonation | Using another’s name or persona on a website or in a message to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten | Third-degree felony or Class A |
| § 33.021 — online solicitation of a minor | Soliciting a minor electronically for sexual conduct or a meeting | Second- or third-degree felony |
| § 21.16 — unlawful disclosure of intimate visual material | Sharing intimate images without consent (“revenge porn”) | Class A misdemeanor (state-jail variants exist) |
The key separation is the gravamen. Section 42.07 is about the act of sending — repetition and manner. Section 33.07 is about identity — pretending to be someone. Section 33.021 is about sexual purpose. A single online dispute can implicate more than one of these, and prosecutors sometimes overcharge by stacking them. When the conduct is genuinely just hostile messaging between teenagers, the correct statute is § 42.07, and arguing the case down to that misdemeanor frame — or out of the felony statutes entirely — is often the central strategic objective.
How do prosecutors build these cases?
Electronic-harassment cases are evidence-heavy and screenshot-driven. The State tries to authenticate the messages, tie the account to the defendant, and establish the count and timing that make the conduct “repeated.” Each step has a vulnerability — cropped screenshots, unsubpoenaed account records, and a “repeated” sequence that dissolves on a full timeline.
Electronic-harassment cases are evidence-heavy and screenshot-driven. Understanding how the State assembles the file shows where it can come apart.
The investigation usually starts with a complaining parent who brings a stack of screenshots to a school resource officer or a police department. From there, the State tries to (1) authenticate the messages, (2) tie the account to the defendant, and (3) establish the count and timing that make the conduct “repeated.” Each step has a vulnerability. Screenshots can be cropped, reordered, or edited to remove provoking messages from the complainant. Account attribution depends on records — IP logs, subscriber data, device forensics — that are often never subpoenaed in a misdemeanor. And the “repeated” element can dissolve when the timeline is reconstructed and several of the alleged messages turn out to be the complainant’s replies or third parties piling on.
A recurring information-gain point: because § 42.07 is so often charged off raw screenshots, the metadata frequently never gets pulled. A defense request for the full, native message thread — with timestamps and both sides — can change the picture entirely, surfacing mutual conduct, gaps in the “repeated” sequence, or messages the complainant deleted before printing.
What happens when the accused is a juvenile?
When the accused is under 17, the case generally proceeds in the juvenile system as delinquent conduct under Title 3 of the Family Code — a petition, an adjudication, and a disposition oriented toward supervision and rehabilitation. A juvenile adjudication is not an adult conviction, but statements made in a school investigation can be used in the juvenile case.
A large share of these cases involve one teenager accused of harassing another. When the accused is under 17, the case generally proceeds in the juvenile justice system as delinquent conduct under Title 3 of the Family Code, not as an adult criminal prosecution. The vocabulary is different — a “petition” instead of an indictment, an “adjudication” instead of a conviction, a “disposition” instead of a sentence — and the orientation is toward supervision, counseling, and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
That distinction has real consequences for families. A juvenile adjudication is not an adult criminal conviction, and juvenile records carry their own sealing and confidentiality rules. But statements a teenager makes during a school investigation, to a resource officer, or to a “concerned” adult can be used in the juvenile case, so the timing of any interview matters a great deal. We routinely advise families to get counsel involved before a child gives any statement, because the most damaging evidence in a teen harassment case is frequently the accused student’s own apologetic or defensive message sent after the fact.
County-by-county practice notes
L and L Law Group defends these cases across the DFW area from our Frisco office. Adult misdemeanor § 42.07 cases are filed by information in the county criminal courts; juvenile referrals are routed to each county’s juvenile court. Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant differ meaningfully in venue and intake practice.
L and L Law Group defends these cases throughout the Dallas–Fort Worth area from our Frisco office. Misdemeanor § 42.07 cases are filed by information in the county criminal courts; juvenile referrals are routed to each county’s juvenile court. The venues differ in meaningful ways.
- Collin County
- Adult misdemeanors are handled at the Collin County Courthouse (Russell A. Steindam Courts Building) in McKinney; juvenile matters run through the county’s juvenile court and the Collin County Juvenile Probation Department. School-based reports out of fast-growing districts here frequently arrive as both a disciplinary referral and a police complaint at the same time.
- Dallas County
- Misdemeanor cases are heard at the Frank Crowley Courts Building; the Dallas County Henry Wade Juvenile Justice Center handles juvenile referrals. Dallas’s pretrial-diversion options can be a useful path for a first-time accused.
- Denton County
- Cases are heard at the Denton County courts complex in Denton, with juvenile matters handled through the county’s juvenile services. The blend of large suburban school districts produces a steady volume of teen social-media complaints.
- Tarrant County
- Adult cases run through the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth; juvenile referrals go to the Lynn W. Ross Juvenile Justice Center. Tarrant’s intake screening matters because the manner the report is framed often drives whether it is charged at all.
These are general practice observations about where cases are heard and how they tend to arrive. Each case turns on its own facts, the specific prosecutor, and the school district involved.
Collateral consequences and sealing
Even a misdemeanor harassment record reaches background checks for employment, college admissions, scholarships, and licensing, and a David’s Law civil injunction or school discipline can run in parallel. A dismissal, acquittal, or no-bill can qualify for expunction; a conviction or deferred adjudication may later be sealed by nondisclosure. Juvenile records have their own, often more favorable, sealing rules.
Even a misdemeanor harassment record reaches beyond the courtroom. A conviction can surface on background checks for employment, college admissions, scholarships, and professional licensing. For a young person, a harassment entry tied to a minor victim is the kind of record that gets read uncharitably years later. School-discipline consequences — suspension, placement in a disciplinary alternative program, or removal from extracurriculars — can run in parallel and on a faster timeline than the criminal case. A David’s Law civil injunction, if one is sought, can also impose ongoing restrictions independent of any criminal outcome. None of these tracks automatically resolve the others, which is why coordinating the response across the criminal/juvenile case, the school process, and any civil injunction matters.
The record is not necessarily permanent. If a case ends in dismissal, acquittal, or a no-bill, it can qualify for expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55, which destroys the records. Where a case results in a misdemeanor conviction or deferred adjudication, an order of nondisclosure under Government Code Chapter 411 may later seal the record from most public view, subject to eligibility rules and waiting periods. Juvenile records have their own sealing provisions under the Family Code, which are often more favorable. The achievable goal in many of these cases is a disposition that preserves a future expunction or sealing — for a teenager, keeping the long-term record clean is frequently the single most important objective.
L and L Law Group represents clients facing § 42.07 online-harassment and cyberbullying allegations across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties. Co-founding partners Reggie London and Njeri London handle the criminal/juvenile case, coordinate the school-discipline response, and plan for the collateral consequences from the outset. Free initial consultations are available; contact the firm at (972) 370-5060 or info@landllawgroup.com to schedule.
