A later version of this article was first published by The Conversation on 2 May 2024 and can be read here.

By Alexandros Antoniou, Essex Law School

In our digitally interconnected world, the allure of Hollywood and music sensations captivates millions, drawing admirers into the intimate orbit of their idols. Falling under the spell of a celebrity crush is a common aspect of adolescent development, but today’s heightened accessibility can foster a dangerous sense of entitlement among fans.

The recent conviction of Harry Styles’ stalker, who inundated him with 8,000 cards in under a month, vividly illustrates the alarming consequences of overstepping boundaries in the perceived intimacy between fans and celebrities. Notably, journalist Emily Maitlis, The Crown actress Claire Foy, and TV presenter Jeremy Vine have all experienced similar stalking incidents.

A range of audience engagement

We connect to media figures in different ways, from deeply empathising with a cherished character’s experiences to feeling a sense of closeness with TV hosts who become a familiar presence in our lives. For example, a beloved TV character’s joys and sorrows might deeply resonate with audiences, leading to shared emotional experiences.

Sometimes we immerse ourselves in a character’s narrative to the extent that their joys and sorrows become intimately felt experiences (e.g., a deep sense of sadness when a beloved TV character undergoes a loss), regardless of their disparate backgrounds or life journeys.

Repeated exposure and personal disclosures from media personalities can create a sense of closeness in viewers, despite the lack of direct interaction, as when a TV host becomes a familiar presence in our daily lives. These connections, known as parasocial relationships, thrive on perceived intimacy but lack reciprocity.

Fandom, marked by intense admiration, elevates parasocial relationships to pedestals and becomes deeply ingrained in one’s identity. This devotion can extend beyond individual characters to entire shows or franchises, manifesting in activities like collecting merchandise and engaging with online fan communities.

Our ties to fictional characters, the actors embodying them, and influential media figures vary but collectively form a spectrum of audience involvement. This intricate web of seemingly harmless bonds can morph into toxic obsessions, as seen in the case of Emily Maitlis’ stalker, whose “unrequited love” for the former news anchor led to repeated breaches of a restraining order.

However, it is not merely a gradual escalation of these connections; rather, individuals (possibly battling mental health challenges) may harbour various motivations ranging from vengeance, retribution, and loneliness to resentment, a yearning for reconciliation, or a quest for control. They may hold delusions, such as “erotomania,” believing someone loves them and will eventually reciprocate. Their behaviour might stem from an obsessive fixation on a specific cause or issue.

In the complex realm of fandom culture, the law starts by recognising that beneath the celebrity veneer of flawless posts and red-carpet appearances lies a real person with vulnerabilities. Like everyone, they too deserve a zone of privacy which comprises different layers of protection.

The sanctum core

Picture your life as a mansion, with each room symbolising different facets: thoughts, emotions and personal endeavours. Encircling this mansion is a protective perimeter of a privacy zone, shielding specific aspects of your life from unwanted intrusion, be it by strangers, acquaintances, or the government. Maintaining the integrity of these restricted areas is left to a mixed legal environment encompassing civil remedies and criminal offences, including racially or religiously aggravated variants.

Secretly monitoring someone’s activities or lingering around their home without valid cause gravely endangers this zone. Claire Foy’s stalker, who had become “infatuated” with the actress, received a stalking protection order after appearing uninvited at her doorstep, leaving her “scared” of her doorbell ringing and feeling “helpless” in her own home. Sending unsolicited “gifts” is also associated with stalking, as demonstrated by Styles’ relentless pursuer who sent countless unsettling letters and hand-delivered two to the singer’s address, causing “serious alarm or distress”.

An intimate ecosystem

Importantly, the mansion’s private enclave embodies more than an inner sanctuary where people can live autonomously while shutting out the external world. Our private sphere also safeguards our personal growth and ability to nurture relationships, constituting a “private social life.”

When stalking rises to the level of inducing fear of violence or has a “substantial adverse effect” on someone’s regular activities, e.g., forcing a celebrity to make significant changes to their lifestyle, the law steps in to protect victims, including innocent bystanders who might experience direct intrusion themselves.

For example, Emily Maitlis’ stalker showed “breath-taking persistence” in contacting his victim and her mother, while Foy’s stalker had emailed the actress’ sister and texted her ex-boyfriend. Such conduct warrants legal intervention because it can severely impair someone’s ability to freely establish normal social networks and ultimately increases isolation, amplifying the disruptive impact on their support systems.

Advancements in communications technology have driven the surge in “cyberstalking”. For example, presenter Jeremy Vine’s stalker “weaponised the internet”, sending relentless emails identifying his home address and instilling fear for his family’s safety. Such digital variations of traditional stalking might also be pursued through communications offences, including the newly enacted “threatening communications” offence.

FOUR indicators

Behaviours may vary but they frequently exhibit a consistent pattern of Fixated, Obsessive, Unwanted and Repeated (FOUR) actions, violating not only a person’s inner circle privacy zone but also the outer sphere of their private social life.

While rooted in natural admiration for talent and charisma, celebrity worship can blur the line between harmless adoration and harmful obsession, particularly in an age dominated by social media that gives unprecedented access to our favourite stars. Legal boundaries delineate genuine appreciation from repetitive, oppressive conduct that jeopardises someone else’s well-being.