Conference back40::soapbox

    
    What a sick b******* he sounds like, probably would've done all that
    to eventually. Glad he got caught before he could act on his sick
    fantasy's.
    
    Mark

    Sounds like the money spent on his college education would have
    been better spent on psychiatrict therapy.
    
    

    	"But they were just TALKING about it..."
    
    	I've heard that argument about other things, why doesn't it
    	apply here?
    
    -----
    
    	Are they doing anything to address the other end of this 
    	correspondence -- Arthur Gronda?  Or do they forget about
    	him because he's out of the country...

I doubt very seriously that you could find many ceiling fans
installed in such a way that they could support the weight of
an adult person.

re .4

Well, there you have it.

Jack Delbalso has discovered the perfect defense.  Because of the
impossibility of doing what he claimed to be doing, Jake's writing
was obviously fantasy, not threat.

/john

    Sounds like conspiracy to commit a felony (kidnapping). A good
    prosecutor should be able to put this degenerate away for awhile.
    Would suggest the female student get a restraining order and buy a
    gun also to carry wherever she goes as I doubt she could possibly
    avoid running into this fool if he gets out on bail or beats any
    charges against him. If he does get tried and beats the charges there
    will be nothing the police can do to prevent him from carrying out his
    threats. Then again maybe a big attack trained Rotweiller might also
    deter his thoughts from becoming reality.
    
    

BTW, apparently this story is standard fare on alt.sex.stories (carried
on news servers at Digital).

Jake's story, by itself, is no different than any other story, with one
exception.

He mentioned a real person by using her last name as the title of the
story.  The "subject" line of the netnews posting.

Apparently that's the only connection with reality, but it appears to
be the fatal legal one for Jake.

Otherwise it appears that this sort of reprehensible trash is perfectly
legal.

/john

    It does sound like conspiracy to commit a felony, to be sure.
    
    How did the FBI get this information?
    Why did they get this information (did "Jane Doe" complain...did she
        know about it at all?)
    
    All in all, our net surfer seems to have some pretty sick fantasies...I
    would not put it past him to actually commit these acts at some point
    in the future.
    
    -steve

    	Are the quoted postings still posted on the newsgroup?

    Wow... this whole thing is truly disgusting. Especially John's
    observation that if not for the gaffe of actually mentioning
    a specific person (victim), this stuff is otherwise permissable
    on Internet (and is probably worse on some private BBSs).
    
    An interesting free speech issue underlies this... I can't
    imagine allowing or accepting this behavior on the basis
    of free speech, but perhaps someone can enlighten this
    wretched authoratarian...
    
    -b

>    How did the FBI get this information?

A UMich alum in Berlin, Germany, who reads a.s.s., decided it was too
outrageous and notified the University.  Jake was expelled, and the
University called the FBI.

>    Are the quoted postings still posted on the newsgroup?

I just checked the ZKO news server; only a couple of weeks worth of
a.s.s. appears to be present (unless there's some way to look at older
stuff that I don't know about; I don't do news).  There are some other
examples of his writing, and there's a lot of really gross junk.

Each server sets its own retention period (volume?); it may be available
from other servers.

/john

>re .4
>
>Well, there you have it.
>
>Jack Delbalso has discovered the perfect defense.  Because of the
         B

Well, that's a rather bizarre conclusion to reach in response to
a flip comment by someone who hasn't even troubled themselves to
read the basenote in its entirety . . . . 

Whatever floats yer boat, one supposes . . . .

re: .11 (MPGS::MARKEY)

>    a specific person (victim), this stuff is otherwise permissable
>    on Internet (and is probably worse on some private BBSs).
This word "permissable" bothers me.  What are you suggesting as an
alternative to what's there now?  

>    An interesting free speech issue underlies this... I can't
>    imagine allowing or accepting this behavior on the basis
>    of free speech, but perhaps someone can enlighten this
>    wretched authoratarian...
"I can't imagine..."  That's a pretty limited imagination you have
there.  Imagine this:

2012: "Since all firearms are illegal, why should books about their
       design, upkeep and maintence be permitted?  Owning one of these
       books is tanamount to treason..."

2075: "Recent advances in neuroresearch have uncovered the basis for
       the belief of some in "god"; now we know it's a natural
       genetic flaw, similar to the HSX-3 defect that causes
       homosexuality.  Since this means all "bible" stories are
       demonstrably false, it is no longer permissible to keep
       any copies of the so-called "judeo-christian bibles". Copies
       in your posession should be forwarded to the inceration station
       nearest you.  Society requires your compliance.  <beep>"

We don't have to like it, we don't have to be quiet about it, but we
must allow it.   I sure would hate to hear "President Clinton appointed
the Minister of Censorship today; a fellow Rhodes Scholar blah blah."

\john

    	.14
    
>Imagine this:

>2012: "Since all firearms are illegal, ...
>
>2075: "Recent advances in neuroresearch ...
    
>I sure would hate to hear "President Clinton appointed
>the Minister of Censorship today; a fellow Rhodes Scholar blah blah."

    	No!  Not that!  It's bad enough that they are talking about
    	Clinton in 1996!  Not Clinton in 2012 and 2075 too!!!

    
    the detroit news says although baker had a class with "pamela"
    he had never talked to her.  he's being held without bail, even
    though a psychiatrist and a psychologist both testified at his
    bond hearing that he is not a threat to harm himself or anyone
    else; and he is, of course, presumed innocent.  there was a four
    month period between his posting and his arrest, and there is no
    evidence that he did anything during that time to harm the woman
    named in his writings.
    
    the news suggests that baker's writing is protected by the first
    amendment, and the woman should seek compensation for breach of 
    privacy in a civil suit.  this sounds about right to me, although
    there is no way of knowing for sure whether baker is fantasizing
    or not.  sometimes being free makes life one big crap-shoot.  ask
    anyone who has called the police and told them someone has threatened
    to kill them.  ("sorry, but they have to actually do something before
    we can arrest them.")
    
    the big problem here is that just about any name one would use in any
    kind of writing would in all likelihood belong to a real person, and 
    that would send us into a rathole from which it would be difficult to 
    emerge. 
    
    i think the kid should walk.  we don't have to like it.
    bill

    >BTW, apparently this story is standard fare on alt.sex.stories (carried
    >on news servers at Digital).
    
     SFW?
    
    >Jake's story, by itself, is no different than any other story, with one
    >exception.
    
    SFW?
    
    >Otherwise it appears that this sort of reprehensible trash is perfectly
    >legal.
    
    SFW? If you don't like it, don't read it. A difficult concept for some,
    I know.
    
    The posting in and of itself does not seem to violate any laws. The
    email, however, appears to constitute conspiracy. Or at least lean in
    that direction. 
    
     The problem is that alt.sex.stories and newsgroups of that ilk share a
    problem, and that is that people who want attention need to say more
    and more outrageous things to stand out. That doesn't mean they plan on
    doing any of the things they say or even have fantasies of doing those
    things; in many cases it just means they want the attention and/or
    notoriety for posting something particularly comment worthy (whether
    it's very good or very bad does not appear to matter.) Frankly, I've
    seen worse. Cindy's Torment and Cindy's Revenge seemed even more brutal
    to me; they turned even my rather strong stomach. man's inhumanity to
    man. That doesn't mean the newsfeeds ought to be shutdown. That doesn't
    mean those who post ought to be carted off to jail. but we are
    certainly free to make our own judgments as to the level of mental
    health of such people.

    
    
    
    Let's add a new twist to this.  What if it was your daughter that was
    mentioned and that the threats were written about?  
    
    Doesn't make it so okay any longer, does it?  I understand the touchy
    nature of this subject, but as a father, seeing this going on about my
    daughter, there would be several thoughts going through my mind.  
    
    
    Mike

    >Let's add a new twist to this.  What if it was your daughter that was
    >mentioned and that the threats were written about?
    
     That's the first thing that went through my mind.
    
    >Doesn't make it so okay any longer, does it?
    
     Who said it was ok in the first place?
    

    
    
    
    
    Wasn't addreseed just to you, Mark.  To the crowd in general.  There
    are notes in here that say that there was no crime committed since no
    action was taken.  Maybe okay is the wrong word, but I think you get
    the idea of the point I was making.
    
    
    Mike  

    re; Jake Baker... i think Dennis Leary said it best when he says
    "just put a .44 magnum to his brain stem and pull the trigger."
    
    Chip

    .16
    
    >>there is no evidence that he did anything during that time to harm
    the woman named in his writings<<
    
    There was no evidence that John Salvi had ever opened fire on
    a clinic before either.
    
    I wonder if some of you guys would be so easy with this if the
    name had been John Doe instead, and he were in your class in college?
    Would you be so comfortable knowing he was thinking of even writing
    about doing those things to one of you?

    Mark:
    
    The acronym for "Save the Whales" is STW, not SFW!
    
    You're welcome!
    
    -Jack

    Maybe he hadn't taken any action...yet.  But just maybe what you meditate 
    on, you become. 

 So there's a chance I'll become Robert DeNiro one of these days then.

        If you're  in a mood to read one of Baker's pieces, take a look
        at alt.sex.stories 53605.
        
        Try not to  read it on a full stomach or you may suffer a state
        change...
        
        

    .26
    
    i cannot imagine the circumstances under which i would be in a mood to
    read anything whatever on alt.sex.stories.

Quick, someone write a story about forcing Binder to read a story on a.s.s.!

    
    
    
    Too busy writing them eh Dick? 

    .29
    
    how long should such a story be?  i can write em, yew betcha i can.

    
    Make it in haiku form.......

    they met in a bar.
    his camera watched her die,
    bit by bloody bit.

| <<< Note 299.25 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>


| So there's a chance I'll become Robert DeNiro one of these days then.

	It will never happen.... he's NOT royalty....

	>>>It will never happen.... he's NOT royalty....

	oh, I don't know about that.  I would gladly kiss
	his, um, ring any day.

	If you're gonna give up the crown, I WANT IT! (or at least the tiara)

    	It would seem to me that (except for the fact that he named
    	a specific person) what this guy has written is no different 
    	from stuff available in adult bookstores, and even some common
    	pump manuals.
    
    	Is the real focus here his threatening use of a specific person's
    	name?  Or is it his fantasy writing in general?
    
    	Has activity to the newsgroup increased or decreased because
    	of this incident?  (I would suspect readonly activity might
    	very well increase from the publicity, but I also suspect
    	that write activity might decrease out of fear of similar
    	prosecution.)

    
    "pump manuals"?
    
    I don't know if I even want to know what those are.
    

| <<< Note 299.38 by POWDML::LAUER "Intoxicatingly Connected" >>>


| "pump manuals"?
| I don't know if I even want to know what those are.

	I think raq wrote that manual..... she's always wearin them....

I've always had city water, so I've never seen a pump manual.

Another voice ignorant of the term "pump manual".

And how many of you that wrote something about getting clintoon out of ofice 
would like to be visited by the SS and tried for conspiracy?

I have read any number of steven king books where the names are "real"
(just look in any big city phone book) of course movies and books usually have 
disclaimers "this is fiction any relation to persons living or dead,, etc")

The guy was stupid.
The guy owes an apology to the young woman.
The guy probably should find a job other than "author".

But we cannot let the first amendment be trampled. There are writings in 
soapbox that refer to medical people as "thugs" "murderers" etc and implicitly
accept violence against them. do you think those authors should be
arrested by the FBI?

Amos

    Yes of course, I forgot, the Nazis are about to take over your country.

    
    "Transmitting a threat to injure" ?  It is typical of our society
    that we are now convicted of "information crimes" like so-called
    conspiracy, etc.  If the above is supposed to be English, the threat
    to injure is legal.  It is "transmitting" it that puts you in the
    can.  The trial lawyers didn't lobby for this law perchance ?
    
      bb

    Amos,
    
    I agree with you about civil rights (in general), as you know. But
    "speech" is an interesting concept. Is it "free speech" to express
    violent sexual fantasies?
    
    We're talking about commiting illegal acts in the context of sexual
    fantasy. Is that free speech? Sodomy and adultery are considered
    illegal acts in many places, but are the laws enforced? No, generally
    they are not. So it's not the same thing as expressing the wish to
    murder a person as part of sexual gratification. If expressing a
    wish to specifically murder someone is a crime, why is it not also
    a crime to express the desire to off someone as part of a sexual
    fantasy? I just do not see the connection to free speech when the
    speech advocates commiting a crime, a serious crime, a crime that
    is generally recognized by society at large.
    
    It is also one thing, as Steven King does, to talk about such things
    being performed by the characters in a novel, it is quite another
    thing to express such things as first-person sexual fantasy.
    
    As for those you mention who expressed ambivalence over the death
    of abortionists, I never once heard one of them say that they
    fantasized over such murders themselves. If they did, quite
    frankly, I would be glad to see them imprisoned.
    
    -b

  It would seem to me that the question here is whether the defendant was
participating in a conspiracy to commit murder or if he was just writing
fiction. 

  If he was just writing fiction then I agree that should be protected by free
speech but if he was participating in a conspiracy then that should not be
protected. Claiming free speech in that type of case would be the same as a mob
boss using the 1st amendment to protect his right to order a hit. 

  The best way to handle this would be to present the evidence to a jury and
let them decide of this was a conspiracy with intent to commit murder. The
defense would be free to claim that the defendant was just writing fiction and
the jury as finders of fact could decide if they believed him or not. 

  If that were done, no one's right to free speech or due process would be
violated.

  George

| <<< Note 299.45 by MPGS::MARKEY "Calm down: it's only 1s and 0s" >>>


| Is it "free speech" to express violent sexual fantasies?

	Brian, yes it is.

| We're talking about commiting illegal acts in the context of sexual fantasy. 
| Is that free speech? 

	Yes.

| Sodomy and adultery are considered illegal acts in many places, but are the 
| laws enforced? No, generally they are not. 

	I think that the sodomy law is one of convience. If one is raped and
sodimized, it is enforced. But a man and a woman could have anal sex in their
home, and it would not be.

Glen

    Why is there so much discussion about it being "okay" to write anything
    in fiction?  The affidavit in .0 contains quotes apparently outside of
    the context of fiction in which the correspondents express intent to
    get together and commit some pretty disgusting acts.  Comments about
    what can be written in fiction are irrelevant when there is non-fiction
    material in evidence.
    
    Does corresponding with somebody to establish a meeting with the intent
    of kidnapping and assaulting a person constitute conspiracy, even if no
    person or detailed plan is specified?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Wow, pinch me. George hit it on the head! What more can I say? In this
    case he's nailed exact nature of the issues involved. Good job George.
    
    -b

    From what I've seen, a conspiracy charge allows a lot of leeway for the
    prosecution, but you still need an "overt act" to demonstrate the
    conspiracy was serious in its intent.  I'm not sure writing a letter
    constitutes an overt act.

    .50
    
    was that REALLY necessary, &y?  i could have gone the rest of my life
    without having that imagery evoked.

    Andy might have considered using a form feed to hide the, er, "imagery"
    and Herr Binder could have stopped reading once he determined the
    nature of the posting...

        No Dick,  but given the wittering about "rights", it felt right
        to put a  perspective  on  what  Baker  writes  about  and  was
        supposedly planning to do.  The description I posted is vastly
        less detailed than in .0,  the  legal  document and, yes, I did
        think  about  not posting it, but  sometimes  unpleasant  stuff
        needs to be confronted and examined in  the  cold light of day,
        especially when "rights" are being considered.
        
        Andy
        

    >was that REALLY necessary, &y?  i could have gone the rest of my life
    >without having that imagery evoked.
    
    Well, it does serve a purpose Dick... it allows me to ask Glen
    to go back and read the last paragraph of &y's note (ignore
    whether intent was involved or not.) Just let me know Glen if
    you believe if someone expresses such a fantasy in the _first
    person_, if that is protected free speech.
    
    -b

        In the "heard but unverified" dept.
        
        It seems  that Baker and some guy at another site carried on an
        extended Email conversation  which  played with the feasibility
        and logistics of carrying out one of his fantasies - seems that
        an examination of backups provided evidence of intent.  If this
        is true then it would explain why he's being held.

        Below the <ff> is a short description of one of Baker's stories

                        
        The  story  of his I read involved his  abduction  of  a  young
        (14/15  year  old)  woman,  her  beating  until semi-conscious,
        violent rape  using  tree branches, violent rape by the writer,
        closing with him  shooting her in the arms and legs and leaving
        her to die.  All first person writing and lovingly described in
        excruciating detail.

        <ff> added  to .50 Dick, along with my apologies for not having
        thought to insert it in the first place.
        
        Andy
        

	Yes, I believe it is. It does not mean that person wouldn't be
reported. They have the right to say it. 

    What does "reported" mean? Reported to who? Are you implying that you
    would rather have the government have such people "on report" than
    actually arresting them and publically prosecuting them for a crime?
    If that's what you're saying, we're _far_ apart on this issue.
    
    My opinion is, if I express a first person fantasy which involves
    commiting rape or murder, then I should be subjest to prosecution.
    But certainly not government "lists". Eeeh gads no.
    
    -b

	Report as in report to authorities. 

    Well, yes, I figured that Glen, but what would have "authorities" do
    with the information if not use it to prosecute? I'd much rather have
    someone be openly prosecuted in the legal system than have the
    "authorities" just "keeping an eye on things". To me the latter is
    far more dangerous to civil liberty.
    
    -b

	Brian, what would the get the person for? No crime has been committed.
Here is an example. A few months back the Police heard that a Baybank on Rt 20
in Marlboro was going to be robbed. They knew who was going to do the robbing.
They could not do anything about it until the act happened. That is the law my
friend. What your asking them to do makes us more of a military state than a
democracy.

  There is a law against conspiracy to commit murder.

  Perhaps there is no such law against conspiracy to rob BayBanks on Rt 20.

  George

	<grin>....

    Ah no, big difference Glen. If the police had a note, email or other
    evidence written by the robber stating his/her intent to knock over
    the bank, they would have had grounds to arrest (for conspiracy).
    
    Whether or not it actually was conspiracy is not a matter of "opinion",
    it is in fact, a matter of due process (as George pointed out). I
    support the right of the government to _procesecute_ someone who
    openly expresses the desire to commit a crime (particularly a violent
    one). The jury can decide whether it was a crime or not, but I
    happen to believe that the people who are prosecuting this bozo
    are doing _exactly_ the right thing. And since you know me, you
    should know I have no truck with "police states".
    
    -b

    
      Yes, there are indeed very bad laws which make "conspiracy" a crime.
    
      They have been used by the terrorist liberals to destroy our society.
    
      bb

    I realize I failed to complete my point in the previous note... it's
    one thing for an informer to say "so and so is going to commit a
    crime", it's another for me to say "I'm going to commit a crime", or
    even "I think it would get my rocks off if I commited this crime".
    
    -b

| <<< Note 299.64 by MPGS::MARKEY "Calm down: it's only 1s and 0s" >>>

| Ah no, big difference Glen. If the police had a note, email or other
| evidence written by the robber stating his/her intent to knock over
| the bank, they would have had grounds to arrest (for conspiracy).

	Agreed. But I thought you said first person. Maybe we have a different
understanding of those 2 words?

| Whether or not it actually was conspiracy is not a matter of "opinion", it is 
| in fact, a matter of due process (as George pointed out). I support the right 
| of the government to _procesecute_ someone who openly expresses the desire to 
| commit a crime (particularly a violent one). The jury can decide whether it 
| was a crime or not, 

	If it were to happen your way, I would hope it doesn't get to a jury if
it is not a crime. The discovery hearing should hopefully take care of that.

Glen

RE               <<< Note 299.67 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	If it were to happen your way, I would hope it doesn't get to a jury if
>it is not a crime. The discovery hearing should hopefully take care of that.

  The matter of whether or not conspiracy to commit murder is or is not a crime
is a matter of law and would be handled at a pretrial hearing or would be
handled by a higher court on appeal. 

  If Conspiracy were found to be a crime and if a prima fascia case could be
made by the prosecution that this individual committed that crime, then the
decision as to whether or not this particular individual committed such a
conspiracy would be up to the jury. 

  From what I've seen, conspiracy to commit murder is a crime and it appears
that there is enough evidence here to let a jury decide his guilt or innocence.

  George

    First person = I, me, we...
    
    -b

    Jeez George! Did you OD on common sense pills or what today? :-) :-)
    
    -b

>      Yes, there are indeed very bad laws which make "conspiracy" a crime.
>    
>      They have been used by the terrorist liberals to destroy our society.

You mean like the Chicago 7 trial?

    
    Well, you're right - it's a junk crime that's been used to trash your
    opponents by every sort of political in-group.   The Union in Civil War
    times, Lenin, Hitler, McCarthy, etc, etc.  If you catch somebody DOING
    something, the "overt act", then that's another story.
    
     But conspiracy without an "act" is a crime of fantasy only.  This is
    so luscious a way to get your enemies (look ma, no proof needed) that
    it appeals to anybody when they have power.
    
     Whenever I hear that somebody is being tried for conspiracy, I think
    to myself, "the case must be very weak to grasp for that one".
    
     bb

    I suspect most of the conspiracy part of the penal code was enacted to
    go after the mob.

    RICO can certainly be a dangerous tool in the hands of the government.
    But, again, is openly expressing desire to murder (whether in a sexual
    context or not?) something that society should tolerate on the basis
    of freedom of expression? What about rape?
    
    Are there any circumstances where expressing the desire to commit
    a crime should not be permitted? Or do you agree, for instance,
    with the laws that make it illegal to express the desire to do
    violence to the President?
    
    When the government has, in writing, or through other direct
    evidence (phone taps etc.), information which indicates someone's
    intention to commit a serious crime, should the government be
    disallowed from prosecuting such individuals? Does the victim
    have to be dead and/or raped before the perp should be presecutable?
    
    -b

    	re .38
    
    	Pump manuals.  Same as girlie magazines.  It was a term I picked 
    	up working on a loading dock at a summer job while in college.  

.42>I have read any number of steven king books where the names are "real"
    
    	I read that he pays people he knows to use their names in his
    	books.

    
    
    
    It turns out that a lady wrote a story as a rebuttal to this guys
    story where he is murdered by her (the lady who wrote the story, not
    the victim in his story).  No word on whether the same charges will be
    brought against her.
    
    
    Mike

     Let's see if there is any evidence that she exchanged multiple e-mails
    with someone else making plans for such an event.

RE Should there be laws against Conspiracy to commit murder?
 
  Again, consider two twin brothers Frank and Ralph.

  Both Frank and Ralph decide they can't stand their respective bosses. Both go
out one night to separate seedy bars and each asks if someone will kill their
boss. Each is directed toward a dark smoky corner where each brother meets
a killer called crusher (for our purposes, crusher 1 and crusher 2).

  Each brother offers their respective "crusher" $10,000 to kill their boss.
Each brother goes home and waits. The two crushers head out into the night,
spot the respective bosses, draw their gun and aim.

  Crusher 1 fires and kills Frank's boss.

  Crusher 2 dies of a heart attack and Ralph's boss walks on with no clue that
anything was amiss.

  Has Frank done something more treacherous than Ralph?

  George

| <<< Note 299.75 by 29067::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Pump manuals.  Same as girlie magazines.  

	EEEEeuuuuuuuuuuuuu....... how degrading...... girly mags..... yuk!

    The case made the latest issue of Time or Newsweek, but no mention of
    the email.

    
    .79 
    
    no, but Frank got his wish

TIME Magazine

TECHNOLOGY

SNUFF PORN ON THE NET

  A STUDENT'S SEX FANTASIES RAISE DISTURBING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LIMITS OF FREE
  SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE
  
BY PHILIP ELMER-DEWITT
   
   Jake Baker doesn't look like the kind of guy who would tie a woman by
   her hair to a ceiling fan. The slight (5 ft. 6 in., 125 lbs.), quiet,
   bespectacled sophomore at the University of Michigan is described by
   classmates as gentle, conscientious and introverted. His high school
   librarian, his 4-H adviser, the mother of the children for whom he
   baby-sat in Boardman, Ohio, all stand ready to attest to his moral
   fitness. At the university, where he majors in linguistics, he
   maintained a 3.2 average. Until two weeks ago, he'd never been accused
   of harming anyone. "I don't like stepping on insects," he says.
   
   But Baker has been doing a little creative writing lately, and his
   words have landed him in the middle of the latest Internet set-to, one
   that pits a writer's First Amendment guarantees of free speech against
   a reader's right to privacy. Now Baker is facing expulsion and a
   possible sentence of five years on federal charges of sending threats
   over state lines.
   
   It started in early December, when Baker composed three sexual
   fantasies and posted them on alt.sex.stories, a newsgroup on the
   Usenet computer network that is distributed via the Internet. Even by
   the standards of alt.sex.stories, which is infamous for explicit
   depictions of all sorts of sex acts, Baker's material is strong stuff.
   Women (and young girls) in his stories are kidnapped, sodomized,
   mutilated and left to die by men who exhibit no remorse. Baker even
   seemed to take pleasure in the behavior of his protagonists and the
   suffering of their victims. "Torture is foreplay," he wrote in the
   introduction to one of his pieces. "Rape is romance, snuff is climax."
   
   The story that got Baker in trouble featured, in addition to the
   ceiling fan, acts performed with superglue, a steel-wire whisk, a
   metal clamp, a spreader bar, a hot curling iron and, finally, a match.
   Ordinarily, the story might never have drawn attention outside the
   voyeuristic world of Usenet sex groups. But Baker gave his fictional
   victim the name of a real female student in one of his classes. When
   university officials were alerted (by an alumnus who spotted the story
   on a computer in, of all places, Moscow), they gave Baker a
   psychological evaluation and had him escorted off campus, apparently
   out of concern that he might be a danger to the community - not to
   mention the female student.
   
   Unfortunately for Baker, the Michigan campus is well versed in the
   latest academic debate over where sexual fantasy turns into sexual
   abuse. Catharine MacKinnon, author of Only Words and a professor at
   the law school, is the nation's foremost proponent of the theory that
   writing and reading pornography are in themselves acts of violence;
   that consumers of it end up, depending on their "chosen sphere of
   operation," raping, abusing or discriminating against women. MacKinnon
   immediately seized on Baker's case. "What he wrote constitutes libel,
   sexual harassment and is a violation of privacy," she says. "We need a
   law that addresses what is done to women through pornography."
   
   Some members of Congress apparently agree. Democratic Senator James
   Exon of Nebraska introduced legislation earlier this month calling for
   two-year prison terms for anyone who sends - or knowingly makes
   available - obscene material over an electronic medium. "I want to
   keep the information superhighway from resembling a red-light
   district," Exon says.
   
   But civil libertarians fear the proposed law could turn every
   online-service provider into an info cop. "Exon's bill would be the
   end of the Internet as we know it," says Mark Stahlman, president of
   New Media Associates, a New York City-based media-research firm. Mike
   Godwin, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argues
   that constitutional guarantees apply in the new media just as they
   apply in the old - no matter how offensive the material. "The First
   Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because no one
   ever tries to ban the other kind," he says.
   
   On the Ann Arbor campus, opinion on Baker is divided. "If he's a
   threat, I'd rather have this taken care of quickly," says senior
   Kathryn Jesudowich. The Michigan Student Assembly, on the other hand,
   issued a resolution condemning the university. Then on Thursday, half
   an hour before his disciplinary hearing was set to begin, fbi agents
   arrested Baker under a federal statute that prohibits interstate
   transmission of a threat to kidnap or injure.
   
   In an interview with TIME before he was taken into custody, Baker
   insisted that he never meant to hurt anyone and had never even spoken
   to the woman. "I could have made up a name, but I didn't," he said. "I
   used hers because it was on the top of my mind." He says the violence
   he expressed was a product of stress. "This would not have got written
   had I not been fearful about my future at the university. I had a lot
   of anxiety about my student loan," he says. Baker is anxious about
   coming back to school, and insists he will pursue psychological
   counseling even if the university does not require it. But above all,
   he wants to be a writer - the kind who gets noticed. "The worst insult
   to a writer is for people to have no opinion about his work," he says.
   His newest plot line: "a guy who has been wronged by society and is
   out for revenge." By the time this case is sorted out, he should have
   plenty of material.
   
  REPORTED BY WENDY COLE/CHICAGO

    Clearly, there are people who will use this case to surpress free
    speech. They will be Dems, they will be Repubs... they will be
    the usual control freaks and "we need a law" cry babies that emerge
    whenever this type of thing happens.
    
    Hopefully, I made it clear yesterday that I feel that expressing
    sexual fantasy is well within the realm of free speech. What I
    feel is questionable is whether the expressing the intent to
    commit rape and/or murder, even if it is within the context of
    fantasy, is protected free speech.
    
    Also, the article that John posted fails to point out that it
    was not, in fact, the original fantasy that made Jake Baker
    run afoul of the law, it was e-mail messages that indicated
    his intent to carry out his fantasy.
    
    If you want a clear example of "biased reporting", here it
    is in .83 ... a typical "bait and switch". But that's another
    issue.
    
    -b

>    Also, the article that John posted fails to point out that it
>    was not, in fact, the original fantasy that made Jake Baker
>    run afoul of the law, it was e-mail messages that indicated
>    his intent to carry out his fantasy.

The original fantasy was used to call in the law, who then searched
and found the e-mail messages.

The e-mail messages don't mention anyone by name.

/john

    Judge dismisses charges in Internet fantasy case


    (c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

    (c) 1995 Associated Press

    DETROIT (Jun 21, 1995 - 18:48 EDT) -- A judge threw out charges
    Wednesday against a University of Michigan student who wrote fantasies
    on the Internet about raping and killing a classmate.

    U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said Jake Baker expressed no intent of
    actually carrying out such acts. He said the tale was "only a rather
    savage and tasteless piece of fiction."

    Baker, 21, faced five counts of transmitting a threat to kidnap or
    injure by electronic mail. Each count is punishable by up to five years
    in prison.

    Baker was arrested in February after a University of Michigan alumnus
    read his story on the worldwide computer network and notified school
    officials.

    In addition to putting the fantasy on the Internet, he exchanged e-mail
    with another man about the tale, prosecutors said.

    Prosecutors argued that Baker's e-mail evolved from "shared fantasies
    to a firm plan of action." But defense lawyers argued that Baker's
    writings were protected free speech, and Cohn agreed.

    The judge said "musings, considerations of what it would be like to
    kidnap or injure someone, or desires to kidnap or injure someone" do
    not violate the Constitution unless some intent to commit the acts is
    expressed.

    "The government's enthusiastic beginning petered out to a salvage
    effort once it recognized that the communication which so much alarmed
    the University of Michigan officials was only a rather savage and
    tasteless piece of fiction," Cohn wrote.

    Cohn said Baker's story about a fellow student, whose name has never
    been made public, would have been better handled as a disciplinary
    matter by the university.

    Cohn also said it was important to note that the exchanges between
    Baker and a man identified as Arthur Gonda were private and since Gonda
    has never been found, there is no way of knowing whether the threats
    could have been carried out.

    Neither Baker nor his attorney, Douglas Mullkoff, immediately returned
    messages seeking comment.

    U.S. Attorney Saul Green said he may appeal.

    Baker was suspended by the university after he was charged, moved to
    his mother's home in Boardman, Ohio, and withdrew from the school.

    Baker sent Gonda a message in December saying in part, "I want to do it
    to a really young girl first. ... There (sic) innocence makes them so
    much more fun -- and they'll be easier to control. What do you think?"

    Gonda responds: "I would love to do a 13 or 14 year old. I think you
    are right ... not only their innocence but their young bodies would
    really be fun to hurt."

    Paul Denenfeld, legal director for the Michigan chapter of the American
    Civil Liberties Union, praised the ruling and said he hopes it will
    curb prosecutors from filing similar charges.

    "I don't think its realistic to think there are not going to be more
    legal issues presented in the future that raise questions about
    electronic communications," he said.
     

    
    Why do I get the feeling that this isn't the last we'll hear about
    Jake Baker?
    

    
    Some sick dirty baskets......

>>Gonda responds: "I would love to do a 13 or 14 year old. I think you
>>are right ... not only their innocence but their young bodies would
>>really be fun to hurt."


 Thank God for freedom of speach. Just imagine the world we would live in if
these perverts were not allowed to spew their garbage over the internat.

 Paul Bernardo must be so proud.

								Derek
    

    
    As usual, the right thing "partially" happened. The good part
    was that Mr. Baker was freed because Constitutional principles
    were held higher than public opinion, so Internet remains intact
    for the rest of us.
    
    The bad part is that a group of fellow citizens did not take Mr.
    Baker out into the woodshed and learn him a permanent lesson or
    two...
    
    -b                                  

    .90
    
    According to Mr Baker, his 29 days in stir taught him a thing or two. 

    
    Ah, you mean his fellow prisoners sinned by lusting after him?

    > Ah, you mean his fellow prisoners sinned by lusting after him?
    
    Prison rape is no laughing matter... how many of 'em wait
    until their condom is on?
    
    A good healthy beating to within an inch of his life would have
    been far more appropriate.
    
    -b

    
    http://www.gov.on.ca/opp/
    
    The Ontario Provincial Police search for Jake Baker's pen-pal.
    

How nice.  A whole web page to look for Gonda.

Baker was acquitted.  He's a jerk, but not a criminal.

Of course, under Canadian law, Gonda's situation may not be quite so good.

/john