Article 27 of 43
Click for Publication information
off our backs 2/28/1998 V.XXVIII; N.2 p. 12
Word Count: 2372
Rape in Cyberspace: Not Just a Fantasy
Author
Arnold, Anne M.
Article
Today, opportunity is plentiful for pastimes such as stalking and various forms of harassment towards women on the Internet. The Internet has evolved so quickly in the past few years that the laws cannot be revised fast enough. Unless action is demanded, we must wait for lawmakers to apply the current laws to the Internet (Furger 185). Meanwhile, the laws are tied up in legislation and women remain victims of on-line violence. As women, we have a responsibility to ourselves to be aware of the situation and force lawmakers to take action until needless on-line violence and harassment ceases.
At the University of Michigan in January, 1995, a student by the name of Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, also known as Jake Baker, posted four graphically violent stories on the Internet using the name of a female student from his class (in the case, her name was protected with the alias Jane Doe). University officials removed the story from the Internet, but porn-lovers continued to post it.
Baker posted his fictionalized stories to alt.sex.stories, the biggest porn-bulletin board on Usenet with approximately 270,000 users internationally (MacKinnon webpage). In his stories, Baker posted Jane Doe's first, middle and last name, complete with the student's detailed physical description. Fortunately, the story was seen and reported to university officials by a University of Michigan alumnus in Moscow.
Gloria Steinem once said, "A woman reading Playboy feels like a Jew reading a Nazi manual" (Hentoff 14). The Jake Baker case, in this sense, represents an important event concerning the civil rights of women in the uncharted waters of Cyberspace. Just after the incident occurred in 1995, Catharine MacKinnon, renowned University of Michigan law professor and scholar on sex equality, made a statement about the need to protect the rights of women, saying that this is not a "free speech issue":
This is a threat to this woman's life, safety, human dignity and equality...Threats are not protected by the First Amendment. If the story was circulated at the University, it could potentially be considered sexual harassment. (MacKinnon webpage)
In 1995, the case was dismissed because the court claimed that Baker's words were protected under the First Amendment. This ruling, without surprise, caused a wave of feminist clamor across the country. The government appealed the dismissed 1995 case, but, in January 1997, the 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati also dismissed charges against Baker, claiming that no threat was intended to the female student. Federal District Court Judge Avern Cohn said that it was Baker's right to freedom of speech, and that the e-mail messages "did not constitute a credible threat" (Swanson webpage).
The First Amendment took a stand in protecting the rights of Jake Baker, who claimed he hadn't ever spoken with Jane Doe. Baker's lawyer, David Cahill, said that Baker "suffers from an overactive imagination" and then made light of Baker's behavior, saying: "This guy has a long career ahead of him as a script writer for Hollywood slasher movies.... He's pushing the envelope on the use of language" (George 1A). Baker claimed that the violence depicted in his stories was a result of "stress I was suffering over a student loan." He then noted, "The pseudo-sexual stuff came from raging hormones" (George 1A). Interestingly, university psychiatrists who had studied Baker immediately after his arrest determined that he "...might be dangerous" (George 6A).
The original federal charges, ironically, were not against the writer for the fabrication of this story and use of a student's name, but for another charge involving his e-mail correspondence. The FBI had found provoking e-mail messages between Baker and an unidentified Canadian acquaintance. On December 9, 1995, Baker had written:
I don't want any blood in my room, though I have come upon an excellent method to abduct a bitch -- I said before, my room is right across from the girl's bathroom. Wait until late at night, grab her when she goes to unlock the door. Knock her unconscious, and put her into one of those portable lockers (forgot the word for it), or even a duffel bag. Then hurry her out to the car and take her away...(MacKinnon webpage)
In this passage (it's just one of many), Baker and his acquaintance fully describe their intentions to abduct and abuse Jane Doe. Despite the evidence, the court dropped the case and Baker was assumed harmless.
After having considered Baker's rights, we mustn't forget Jane Doe. Recall that Baker used the woman's full name and complete physical description, and that this story was published on-line for tens of thousands to read.
Surprisingly, in 1989 at the University of Michigan, a student who composed and orally read an in-class limerick condemning a homosexual athlete at the school was made to apologize publicly in the student newspaper, the Michigan Daily. He was also required to attend gay "rap sessions" as a form of "rehabilitation" (Hentoff 178).
The University of Michigan's speech code protects black, other minority and homosexual students from threatening speech conduct, claiming that the students need protection to "feel more at home on campus" (Hentoff 179). The profound threat involved in the Jane Doe case, however, was excused. Clearly, an imbalance exists: the legal system did not take action to protect Jane Doe. The District Court misapplied the First Amendment to "legitimate repeated threats of actions towards the victim though [Jane Doe] hadn't known at the time" (MacKinnon webpage). The violation of a woman by slander was completely overlooked and dismissed. Legitimate and repeated threats are not protected by the First Amendment.
In another situation at the University of Michigan, a minority dental student commented at his orientation that he had heard how one instructor treated minorities unfairly and that, as a result, her course was exceptionally difficult. When the instructor, also a minority, heard about the comment, she sued the student because what the student had said was "unfair and would damage her chances for tenure" (Hentoff 179). The student was forced to attend counseling sessions, and finally wrote a three-page apology to the professor stating that he should have "verified the allegation before giving voice to it" (Hentoff 179). This disgraceful inconsistency in a speech code, though later somewhat revised, demonstrates how some find protection by rights of defamation, but that a serious offense victimizing a woman can easily be dismissed.
Women remain easy targets of harassment for many reasons. Men's behavior is generally more assertive, studies have found, and on-line defamation of women is not uncommon. Women on the Internet are also greatly outnumbered by men. In 1995, it was estimated that 85 to 90 percent of the 20 million Internet and Net too users were male (Kramarae and Kramer 33). Furthermore, in the workplace, women who wish to be viewed as professional by their male counterparts will not be inclined to report such assaults (Kramarae and Taylor). Cyberspace is still considered a male space; the "Net climate" is not yet conducive to female users (Wiener 275). These statistics create an interesting link to how the Internet can be used against women.
Harassment on-line is not the acknowledgment of a woman's sex; rather, like rape, is considered a power game. Men will use words that embody actions to abuse women. MacKinnon writes: "The process of empowerment of the perpetrator and traumatization of the victim occurs not because of the content of the words...but because of the experiences they embody and convey" (Only Words 59). This becomes the fine line where words stimulate ideas, and those ideas are eventually acted upon. Words reflect attitudes, and violent words can easily shape feelings and opinions about others.
As long as the law makes exceptions for such behavior, men will continue to view women with less respect. Look, for example, at today's sexual discrimination laws in the workplace. Only until recently were these taken seriously, because today's society feels the harsh consequences of such harassment. The law which protects against sexual harassment must also provide an umbrella of security for on-line victims of harassment.
Legally, women are still not completely protected from harassment violations. The Jake Baker case stands as an example of how one woman's civil rights were outweighed by a claim to rights of the First Amendment. As long as stalkers use abusive language through Cyberspace and walk away claiming First Amendment rights, they will continue to terrorize women. It remains a power issue: the victim is helpless until protection is granted by the law. Only recently have laws begun to evolve as a result of the pressure from women like MacKinnon.
Although we would like to believe that it's only a passing trend, Cyberharassment is expected to increase as we enter the twenty-first century (Stephens 27). This projection is a result of an increase in the number of portable computers as well as the overall number of those who will have access to the information superhighway. Today, more than 30 to 40 million people in more than 160 countries have at least e-mail access; in some parts of Europe and Japan, that number has increased by 1000% over the last three years (Elmer-DeWitt 7).
We can protect women's rights to safety on the Internet without abusing the First Amendment. Strict federal laws exist to protect the federal mail system and its depositories; other laws exist to defend people from telephone harassment. With the growing number of Cyberspace users, that information and mail deserves the same protection and privacy. A balance is in order, says Mitchell Kapor:
This involves installing more effective computer security measures, but it also means redefining the legal interpretations of copyright, intellectual property, computer crime and privacy so that system users are protected against individual criminals and abuses by large institutions. These policies should balance the need for civil liberties against the need for a secure, orderly, protected electronic society.
Are we sacrificing safety for freedom? It is not legitimate that the courts support the First Amendment, meanwhile trampling women's rights of protection against defamation and violence. Catharine MacKinnon writes: "Unwelcome sex talk is an unwelcome sex act...it works to exclude and segregate and denigrate and subordinate and dehumanize, violating human dignity and denying equality of opportunity" (Only Words 46). Any form of pornography "plays a major part in establishing and maintaining male supremacy in our society" (Hentoff 343). There is a definite line between the right of free speech and free speech which imposes on others' rights, and Jake Baker crossed that line the moment he decided to name and describe Jane Doe in his stories.
Unfortunately, an Internet stalker who was found corresponding about harming a young woman did not face the same consequences as the stalker who makes prank calls because the Internet case was considered "fantasy." Computer harassment is just as accessible and dangerous as telephone harassment, yet this case demonstrates how little was done to further prevent such behavior. The problem of computer harassment and exposure to violent and explicit material portraying women is a continuing disadvantage for all women. Only recently have such harassment trials begun to challenge courts across the country.
In conclusion, the Jake Baker case brings our attention to a disturbing problem: that women need continued protection from threats and harassment on the Internet. It is outrageous that someone's right to freedom of speech was considered more important than an alleged threat to a woman's life simply because the situation occurred within the realms of Cyberspace. We need some kind of standard to define exactly how speech infringes upon women's rights, and will continue to call attention to this discrepancy as well as demand that the law create guidelines specific enough to protect women.
Bibliography
Baker, Jake. "Stories." http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/pjswan/Baker/Jake_Baker.html. 10 Nov. 1997.
Cohn, Avern. "Judge's Opinion." Jake Baker trial. http://www.mit. edu:8001/activities/safe/safe/cases/umich-baker-story-baker_ opinion.html. 10 Nov. 1997.
Elmer-DeWitt, Philip. "Welcome to Cyberspace." Time 13 Mar. 1995: 7-8.
Furger, Roberta. "What You Can and Can't Get Away With Online." PC World. Aug. 1996: 185-188.
George, Maryanne. "U-M ousts student over rape fantasy: Internet story raises free speech question." Detroit Free Press, 04 Feb. 1995: 1A+
Hentoff, Nat. Free Speech for Me -- But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other. HarperCollins publishers: New York, 1992.
"The Jake Baker Case: Statement of the Case. Part A: Facts." http://www.igc.apc.org/nemesis/ACLU/Baker/ 19 Nov. 1997.
Kapor, Mitchell. "Civil Liberties in Cyberspace." Scientific American Sept. 1991:.
Kramarae, Cheris, and Jana Kramer. "Net gains, Net losses." Women's Review of Books Feb. 1995: 33-35.
Kramarae, Cheris, and H. Jeanie Taylor. "Women and Men on Electronic Networks: A Conversation or Monologue?" Women, Information, Technology and Scholarship. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1993.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Stephens, Gene. "Crime in Cyberspace: The Digital Underworld." The Futurist, 29/5: 24-8. Sept. - Oct. 1995.
Swanson, Peter J. "Decision on Baker spurs legal debate." Jake Baker Information Page. http://krusty.eecs.umich.edu/people/pjswan/Baker/Jake_Baker.html. 10 Nov. 1997.
Wiener, Jon. "Free Speech on the Internet." Literacy, Technology and Society: Confronting the Issues. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995.
Article copyright off our backs, inc.
