Part V
Under §2.02.2 (F)(1)(c), reckless infliction of emotional distress, a potential perpetrator must be aware of the high risk of emotional harm that his/her actions may cause, but still grossly deviate from behavior that the society or community considers reasonable. The case of Jake Baker could be prosecuted under this section. One can argue that Mr. Baker (real last name is Alkhabaz) acted recklessly in writing a story that included the name of an actual student at the university he was attending at the time, who just happened to have the same physical features of the woman in his story.
Footnotes
1. See Stanley Ziembhca, Joilet Man faces Cyber-Harassment Suit, Former Neighbor Seek 3 Million for Alleged Posting of Home Number, Chicago Tribune, March 25, 1998.
2. Id.
3. Maryland, Michigan, Alaska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Illinois are among the several states that have adopted electronic harassment statutory provisions.
4. See American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Extortion, Blackmail, and Threats, Volume 31A, §3 Threat.
5. See Sally Greenberg, Threats, Harassment, and Hate On-Line: Recent Developments, Boston Public Interest Law Journal, Spring 1997.
6. Id.
7. See Watts v. U.S. 4 U.S. 705 (1969).
8. See Anne Bevilacqua, Electronic Harassment, May 2, 1997 on the Computers & Law Homepage,
http://wings.buffalo.edu/Complaw/Com...s/bevilacq.htm
9. The "true threats" utilized in §2.02.1 (C)(1)(a-b) is Justice Jones' definition of what a "true threat" is. This test is located as a footnote in the Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (also known as the "Nuremberg Files case") See 23 F.Supp 2d 1182 (D.Or. 1998).
10. For a history of the different "true threats" standards, See Watt v. U.S., 394 U.S. 705 (1969), Rogers v. U.S., 422 U.S. 35 (1975), U.S. v. Kelner, 534 F.3d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1976), and Roy v. U.S., 416 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1969).
11. See the Jake Baker case, U.S. v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997)
12. See Heather Brooks-Szacha, U.S. v. Jake Baker: The Role of Unique Features of Electronic Mail in a "True Threat" Analysis at
http://www.libraries.wayne.edu/~jlitman/pbrooks.html
13. United States v. Baker, 890 F.Supp 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
14. See Sally Greenberg, Threats, Harassment and Hate On-Line: Recent Developments, Boston Public Interest Law Journal, Spring 1997.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
18. See Courtney Macavinta, Prison Time for Email Threats, CNETnews.com, May 4, 1998,
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200...ml?tag=st.cn.1.
19. Id.
20. See Brooke A. Masters, Cracking Down on E-Mail Harassment, Washington Post, November 1, 1998 (Quote from Jonathan Zittrain, Executive Director of Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society).
21. See California Presses Cyberstalking Case: Man Accused of Impersonating Woman Online, APBnews.com, January 22, 1999,
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/br...lk0122_01.html
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. See Stanley Zienbhca, Will County Focusing on Internet Criminals, Chicago Tribune, May 26, 1998.
25. See Darcy Doran, McGill Student a Victim of High-Tech Harassment.
26. See John L. Diamond, Lawrence C. Levine, and M. Stuart Madden, Understanding Torts, Matthew Bender & Co, Inc. (1996).
27. Blacks Law Dictionary (West 1996).
28. Quote from Professor Susan Brenner, via e-mail to drafter, Noel Ann DeSantis
29. See MSCCC §3.04.1
30. See Brenner, Susan Professor (visited December 4, 1998)