Yes, of course you are right regarding things like the Secrets Act etc., revealing confidential material and so on. Are there such limitations in the private sphere though? With internet chat, especially in the case of flirting or 'cybering', there isn't really an exchange of information in the above sense, but more a stimulation of each other's imaginaton. While I don't deny that such behaviour may hurt your partner's feelings, I do think that this precedent is dangerous because it means that the law has access to how you perceive written matter. Even though in this case it was used as supporting evidence, as lexico mentioned, I dare say there is potential for misuse. Nobody can say with authority how I personally react to, or interpret written matter, and in what spirit I may write private correspondence. Even if two people have an intimate conversation, only those particular individuals know to what extent that speech act has emotional weight or what the chances of a physical act occurring are. In any case, these are details and rules that should be set by the parties involved, not the legal system. As an example, here in Australia, some older ladies have a tendency to call everyone "darling", but it is understood that this has no romantic or intimate overtones, and is just a casual term with no particular emotional weight. What if a court suddenly ruled that using such words implied an intimate relationship and was therefore a sign of infidelity?