The popularity of email and the Internet has grown exponentially. The trouble is, the popularity of cyberstalking has grown with it.

Page 1  2
Stalking in the real world, by some accounts, dates back to the 1800s. It wasn't until 1990 that lawmakers began taking it seriously, however. That was when California legislators passed the first law making stalking a crime. The other 49 states soon followed suit, outlawing stalking in the real world.

Currently, though, 19 US states do not have specific laws against cyberstalking. And while most other state governments have amended their existing harassment or stalking laws to include electronic forms of communication, even these amended state laws have limited reach.

"That's one of the reasons why we're handling more of these cases at the federal level," said Bentivoglio. "A lot of these cases are interstate in nature, and state authorities are having difficulties because of the geographical boundaries."

Currently, 18 USC; section 875 makes it a "federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another."

Section 875 applies to any communication transmited via the telephone, email, beepers, or the Internet.

The law is not all-encompassing, however. In an August, 1999 report from the attorney general's office to Vice President Al Gore, Janet Reno wrote that "although 875 is an important tool, it is not an all-purpose anti-cyberstalking statute."

First, it only applies to communications considered actual threats. Second, it is unclear if harassing emails and messages posted in chat rooms and on bulletin boards are covered under the law.

The website that Amy Boyer's stalker maintained would have been outlawed under today's laws only because of the threats made against her life.

Despite the need for anti-cyberstalking legislation, government officials warn against outlawing, even threatening, speech online.

"Drawing the line is very important," Bentivoglio warned, "because we don't want to go too far and criminalize conduct that's really either protected free speech or that's really just annoying. And where we've drawn the line is if harassment rises to the level where it places a reasonable person in fear of injury or harm, that has crossed the line, and that's criminal conduct."

Gregorie says that while protecting free speech is important, the laws still don't go far enough.

"Even freedom of speech has its limits," she insisted. "The classic case says you can't go into a movie theater and yell, 'Fire!' You don't have the freedom of speech to do that. And I don't think that you have the freedom of speech to go onto an Internet service provider and post a homepage that describes how you're going to kill somebody. To me that's a violation, that's a limit of free speech."

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on December 8, 2000.

This article is based on original reporting by "CyberCrime" segment producer and co-host Jennifer London.

Page 1  2