My Public “Victim Impact Statement” Regarding Being ‘Loverboy’ Groomed, Trafficked, Exploited, Abused, Defamed, and Cyberstalked for Years by “Matthew Steven” of Newmarket/Toronto Ontario, Canada, and the United States, and His “Friends”

Under federal law, cyberstalking was primarily addressed through Title 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), amended in 2013 to explicitly include electronic communications. In July 2015, this statute defined stalking (including cyberstalking) as engaging in a course of conduct (two or more acts) using electronic communications, such as email, social media, or other digital platforms, with the intent to:

• Harass, intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to the victim, or
• Place the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to themselves, their immediate family, spouse/partner, or pet

In the context of sextortion, cyberstalking involved a perpetrator using digital tools to gather personal information (e.g., nude photos, addresses, or other sensitive data) and leveraging that information to extort sexual favors, additional images, or other demands, often through threats to expose the information publicly.

Key characteristics of cyberstalking in this context included:

• Repetition: A pattern of behavior, not a single incident, such as repeatedly sending threatening messages or demands.
• Intent: The perpetrator’s intent to control, intimidate, or harm the victim, often through blackmail using gathered personal information.
• Use of Personal Information: Cyberstalkers might collect data by monitoring social media, hacking accounts, or contacting the victim’s friends/family, then use it to coerce or humiliate, as seen in sextortion cases where compromising photos were weaponized.
• Emotional or Physical Fear: The victim’s fear of exposure, reputational harm, or physical danger, even if threats were delivered online.

In July 2015, the definition of online cyberstalking in Washington State, in the context of a sextortionist gathering and using a victim’s personal information against them, was governed by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.61.260, the state’s cyberstalking statute. This law, enacted in 2004, specifically addressed electronic harassment and was applicable to sextortion scenarios where a perpetrator collected personal data (e.g., nude photos or personal details) to coerce or blackmail a victim.

Below is the definition and context for Washington State:

• Making an electronic communication to another person (or a third party) with the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass them, using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene content, or
• Threatening to inflict injury on the person or their property, or on their family or household members, via electronic means, such as email, social media, text messages, or other digital platforms.

Key elements in the context of sextortion included:

• Electronic Communication: This broadly covered communications via the internet, social media, email, or other digital tools, encompassing tactics like gathering personal information from social media or hacking accounts to obtain compromising material (e.g., photos or personal details).
• Intent: The perpetrator had to intend to harass, intimidate, or coerce the victim. In sextortion, this often involved collecting sensitive information and threatening to expose it (e.g., sharing nude images or private details) unless the victim complied with demands for sexual acts, additional images, or money.
• Threat or Harassment: The statute covered both explicit threats (e.g., “I’ll post your photos if you don’t comply”) and actions causing significant emotional distress, such as repeatedly contacting the victim or their associates to gather or exploit personal information.
• Course of Conduct: While not explicitly requiring repetition in the statute, Washington courts often interpreted cyberstalking as involving a pattern of behavior, aligning with federal and other state standards. In sextortion, this could include multiple messages, demands, or threats over time.

The DM from 2016, allegedly from Matthew Steven's “friend(s)”—as he directly told me and was completely resistant to correction, though censored—demanded that I tell my loved ones I had cheated, or else they would do it for me. Matthew Steven's false accusations were then posted numerous times online publicly for approximately two months on a platform with about 40 million users at the time—shortly before I was coerced to meet him under pretenses of a false relationship and sextortion. Matthew Steven benefited sexually from this blackmail/sextortion for approximately four years, on and off. I was stuck in this loveless ‘sex slave’ dynamic—never able to learn about his life or loved ones, never allowed to be friends with him on any social media, and never having any value to him outside of pretending everything was normal to avoid further destruction and public humiliation—until approximately late 2019, after he once again mentioned cheating and I felt safe to leave. That safety, however, did not last.