Denning harassment and threats in legal terms is difficult enough in real-life settings, and an even greater challenge in cyberspace because of its global reach and uncertain jurisdictions. In the United States, the First Amendment grants citizens considerable leeway about what they can say, write, or depict, but it does not protect everything. With respect to threats, federal legislation reads, "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." In other words, certain kinds of threats are not protected by the First Amendment. Some courts have been extremely cautious about prosecution, however. In The People vs. B.F. Jones, the ruling stated, "It is not the policy of the law to punish those unsuccessful threats which it is not presumed would terrify ordinary persons excessively; and there is so much opportunity for magnifying undefined menaces that probably as much mischief would be caused by letting them be prosecuted as by refraining from it."

   Though many anecdotal cases of online harassment and threats have been reported, few have gone all the way through the U.S. legal process so that a judicial ruling becomes part of case law. One notable exception was the explosive case of Jake Baker, who earned considerably more than his 15 minutes of fame in the Internet world. As a University of Michigan student, Baker posted a story to the newsgroup alt.sex.stories in which he graphically described the torture, rape, and murder of a woman who was identified, in the story, as a classmate of Baker's. University officials learned of it - oddly enough, through an attorney in Moscow - and they suspended Baker and began contemplating legal actions.

   The U.S. government investigated Baker and found much more than just the story posted to the Usenet group. Dozens of emails had been exchanged between him and a person in Canada known as Arthur Gonda, in which the two discussed their shared interests in torture and appeared to be planning violent acts that would be carried out in real life, not just as online fantasies. Ultimately, the U.S. officials decided to base their case of harassment against Baker on the contents of the private email rather than the public Usenet posting. Attempting to show a "true threat" as it is defined in the law, government attorneys cited examples from the emails. In one message to Gonda, for instance, Baker writes:

   I've been trying to think of secluded spots, but my knowledge of Ann Arbor is mostly limited to the campus. I don't want any blood in my room, though I have come upon an excellent method to abduct a bitch - As I said before, my room is right across from the girl's bathroom. Wiat until late at night, grab her when she goes to unlock the dorr. Knock her unconscious, and put her into one of those portable lockers (forget the word for it). or even a duffle bag. Then hurry her out to the car and take her away ... What do you think?

   The incident sparked considerable controversy at the university, and the debate spread through the lightning-fast Internet mailing lists and newsgroups. On one mailing list called PTISSUES, populated mainly by faculty and students in English and rhetoric, the participants raised concerns about free speech, confusing jurisdictions, lack of due process, women's rights, sexual harassment, and privacy. One poster thoughtfully expressed the painful ambivalence many felt about Baker's case:

   Ultimately, I am willing to endorse the idea of language as symbolic action, and think that this story probably should constitute a very public threat to the woman named within, but I'm not sure I want to give 100% endorsement to state or federal organizations who may use these types of situations to begin/continue policing the Net.

   The case was debated fiercely in less academic circles as well, and a newsgroup called alt.jake-baker was even created to discuss it. Free speech is one of those issues about which most Internet users can become extremely adamant, but this case put a very bright spotlight on the down side of that position. The debate became even more contentious and troubling when the news reported that Baker's original name was not the ail-American Jake Baker, but Al-Khabaz.

   Ultimately, the District Court threw the case out and concluded that the evidence did not constitute true threats. One judge remarked that the language used by Baker "was only a rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction," and the U.S. Attorney's office was admonished for pursuing the charges in the first place. While applauding their sincerity of purpose, the briefing ends with "I am not sure that sincerity of purpose is either synonymous with a good case under the law, or even the exercise of good judgment."

   We learned more from the Jake Baker case than just the way the courts would be denning "threats" as they unfold in cyberspace. The debates shed light on our own values, and our ambivalence about reprehensible online activities. Clinging passionately to our long-standing and fervent belief about the need to protect free speech around the globe, we also recognize that there are sometimes very significant costs, as they were for the Jane Doe who was the victim in Baker's stories.