Statutory Elements
Section summaryHarassment requires conduct intended to harass and engaged in a manner reasonably likely to produce the prohibited result. The specific conduct categories vary by subsection.
General elements:
- Intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass.
- Specific prohibited conduct.
- Conduct reasonably likely to produce the result.
- Some subsections require repetition.
Subsections
Section summary§42.07 has multiple subsections covering different conduct types: obscene communications, threats, false reports, repeated electronic communications, and other categories.
Common subsections:
- (a)(1) — Obscene communication intent to harass.
- (a)(2) — Threat against person or property to harass.
- (a)(3) — False report of person death or injury.
- (a)(4) — Repeated telephone communications.
- (a)(7) — Repeated electronic communications.
Intent Requirement
Section summaryThe actor must intend to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass. Specific intent is required. Innocent or mistaken contact does not satisfy the element.
Intent considerations:
- Specific intent to harass or similar effect.
- Pattern of conduct can show intent.
- Continued contact after no-contact request supports intent.
- Innocent purpose (debt collection, business, family) generally defeats.
Defenses
Section summaryDefenses include lack of intent, lack of reasonable likelihood, First Amendment protected speech, and identity.
Common defenses:
- Lack of intent.
- Innocent or business purpose.
- Conduct not reasonably likely to produce the prohibited effect.
- First Amendment protected speech.
- Identity (someone else used the device).
Sentencing
Section summaryClass B misdemeanor base. Class A misdemeanor with certain aggravators. Conduct can be enhanced with prior convictions.
Sentencing:
- Class B misdemeanor (base) — up to 180 days, $2,000 fine.
- Class A misdemeanor (aggravators) — up to 1 year, $4,000 fine.
- State jail felony (further aggravators) — 180 days to 2 years.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Stalking and Revenge Porn Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →Evidence Types in Stalking Cases
Texas Online Harassment Under §42.07 prosecutions rely heavily on electronic evidence: text messages, social-media posts and direct messages, email, location data, surveillance video, and phone records. The defense's foundation work in an online-harassment charge under §42.07 is rigorous review and authentication of every piece of evidence the State intends to use.
Counsel should request preservation letters and discovery for the complete communication record — not just the messages the State has highlighted. Selective excerpts often misrepresent the full course of communication. Where the defendant and complainant exchanged hundreds of messages, the prosecutor's curated selection of 10 to 20 messages may strip away context that supports the defense.
Cell-site location data, third-party application records (Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp), and ISP records are all subject to preservation deadlines that run quickly. Counsel should serve preservation letters within days of taking the case, and should issue subpoenas where the defense is entitled to do so. Late-preserved evidence may be permanently lost.
Protective Order Overlap
Texas Online Harassment Under §42.07 matters often coincide with civil protective-order proceedings under Texas Family Code Chapter 85 or Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 7B. The protective-order hearing typically occurs within weeks of the filing — long before any criminal case proceeds to trial. The defense's approach to the protective-order hearing affects the criminal case in important ways.
For an online-harassment charge under §42.07, statements made by the defendant at the protective-order hearing can be used in the criminal case. The protective-order hearing's evidentiary rules are more relaxed than the criminal trial's. The standard of proof is lower (preponderance vs. beyond reasonable doubt). The defendant may face the choice between testifying to defeat the protective order and preserving silence to protect the criminal defense.
Counsel should coordinate the protective-order defense with the criminal defense from the start. In some cases, agreeing to a limited protective order may be preferable to a contested hearing that creates a record harmful to the criminal case. In others, contesting the protective order vigorously may produce a no-finding outcome that supports the criminal defense at trial.
The structure of Texas Penal Code Section 42.07 and the online subsections
Texas harassment is codified at Penal Code Section 42.07, which contains a list of seven distinct subsections defining different forms of prohibited communication. Online harassment is most commonly prosecuted under Section 42.07(a)(7), which reaches the use of an electronic communication to send repeated communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another. Adjacent subsections reach harassment by telephone (Section 42.07(a)(4)) and by communication that conveys a threat of bodily injury or property damage (Section 42.07(a)(2)). A single course of online harassment frequently implicates multiple subsections, which the prosecution typically charges in the alternative.
The base offense is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in county jail and a fine up to $2,000. The offense is enhanced to a Class A misdemeanor if the defendant has a prior conviction for harassment under Section 42.07 or for stalking under Section 42.072, or if the conduct involves specific aggravating circumstances including reference to a family violence protective order or specific threats of suicide. Repeated offenses can produce state-jail felony exposure under Section 42.07(c-1) when accompanied by additional aggravators.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Section 42.07(a)(7) against First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness challenges in Ex parte Barton, 662 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), and Ex parte Sanders, 663 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). The court reasoned that the statute is limited to communications that have no legitimate communicative content and are intended only to harass, which the court characterized as outside the First Amendment protection for genuine speech. The decisions provide the doctrinal framework Texas courts apply to constitutional challenges, but as-applied challenges to particular prosecutions remain available.
The repeated-communications requirement and what counts as a single course
Section 42.07(a)(7) requires repeated communications, which Texas case law has interpreted as more than one and as connected to the same course of harassment. A single email or social media post does not constitute repeated communications even if it produces substantial distress. Two communications may be sufficient depending on the nature and connection of the communications, but the prosecution typically charges cases involving multiple communications over a sustained period.
The repeated-communications element gives the defense a substantive challenge in cases where the communications were widely separated in time or where the communications related to different subjects with different audiences. A defendant who sent one critical email about the victim in January and a separate critical social media post about the victim in June may have two communications but not necessarily a single course of harassment under the statute. The connection requirement comes from the broader course-of-conduct framework in Texas stalking and harassment law and provides a meaningful defense opportunity.
Defense counsel should examine each alleged communication individually and identify the communicative content. Communications that contain legitimate content even if expressed in offensive terms may fall outside the statutory prohibition under the Barton framework, which distinguishes pure harassment from communications with substantive content. A defendant who posted public criticism of the victim business practices, expressed political opinions about the victim positions, or communicated factual allegations relevant to a third-party dispute may be able to argue that the communications had legitimate content and are constitutionally protected even if the victim found them upsetting.
The reasonable-likelihood standard and the objective inquiry
Section 42.07(a)(7) requires that the communications be made in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend. The standard is objective and is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person rather than the actual reaction of the specific victim. The objective standard creates a defense opportunity in cases where the alleged communications would not produce the proscribed effects in a reasonable person.
The defense should analyze the specific content of each alleged communication and assess how a reasonable person would respond. Communications that are factually accurate, that address matters of public concern, or that respond to provocation by the victim may not meet the reasonable-likelihood standard even if the specific victim was upset by them. The defense should also consider whether the victim conduct contributed to the communications: a victim who initiated the contact, engaged in mutual exchange, or solicited the communications cannot credibly claim that subsequent communications were reasonably likely to harass.
The objective inquiry also requires the prosecution to prove the manner of the communications, not just their content. A defendant who sent communications through a private channel that the victim could ignore or block, who used platforms where the victim had the technical means to filter the communications, or who structured the communications to avoid the immediate-harm characteristics of true harassment may be outside the statutory prohibition. Defense counsel should develop the technical context of the communications through expert testimony about how the platforms operate, what controls the victim had available, and what the actual experience of receiving the communications would have been.
Pretrial litigation strategy and the constitutional issues
Pretrial motions to quash and motions to dismiss based on First Amendment grounds remain available even after Barton and Sanders. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decisions upheld Section 42.07(a)(7) facially but did not foreclose as-applied challenges. A defendant whose specific communications involved political speech, commercial speech, or other categories receiving heightened First Amendment protection has an as-applied challenge that the trial court should consider on the specific record.
Discovery should focus on the platform records, the victim engagement with the communications, and any contemporaneous documentation. Subpoenas to Meta, X, Google, and other platforms can produce the actual delivery records, the privacy settings in effect at the relevant times, and the victim engagement metrics. The platform records can establish whether the communications actually reached the victim, whether the victim engaged with the communications, and what controls were available. Each of these facts informs both the reasonable-likelihood analysis and the as-applied First Amendment challenge.
Plea negotiations should consider the collateral consequences carefully. A Class B misdemeanor harassment conviction does not produce the most serious collateral consequences, but it can affect employment, professional licensing, and immigration status. A noncitizen defendant should be carefully advised under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), of the immigration implications, which may include classification as a crime involving moral turpitude depending on the specific facts. A licensed professional should be advised of the potential reporting obligations to professional licensing authorities. Negotiated dispositions involving deferred adjudication, pretrial diversion, or class-A reduction to non-violent conduct should be evaluated against the specific collateral-consequence profile of the individual defendant.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many messages constitute harassment?
Is one threatening message harassment?
Are §42.07 and §42.072 (stalking) different?
Can §42.07 charges apply if I was joking?
Read the full Texas Stalking Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Stalking Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Practical Checklist
- Document everything early. Communications, records, and witness contact information lose value as time passes. Preserve them at the start of the case.
- Identify all parallel proceedings. Criminal, administrative, civil, and regulatory tracks often run in parallel. A statement in one becomes evidence in another. Map the full picture before any disclosure.
- Calendar every deadline. Filing deadlines, response deadlines, discovery deadlines, and hearing dates all have consequences. Missing a deadline can foreclose defenses that the facts otherwise support.
- Build the mitigation package early. Witness letters, treatment records, employment verification, and character references take time to gather. Counsel should begin building the package at the first consultation, not as the hearing approaches.
- Coordinate counsel across forums. Where the matter implicates multiple proceedings, having coordinated counsel (whether one firm or multiple firms in close communication) avoids the strategic errors that inconsistent representation creates.
- Understand the public-record dimension. Many dispositions create searchable records that follow the licensee, defendant, or respondent for years. The decision to contest versus resolve must account for the public visibility of each path.
For a confidential evaluation of your matter, call L&L Law Group at (972) 370-5060 or email info@landllawgroup.com. Initial consultations are free.
Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Online Harassment §42.07, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/online-harassment-42-07/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Online Harassment §42.07. L&L Law Group.