By Jeffrey Kosseff
Jenni Yachnin
Daily Staff Reporters
A panel of judges from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday dismissed the case of a former University student charged with transmitting interstate threats over the Internet.
 | Baker |
In a 2-1 vote, the appellate court panel upheld a 1995 U.S. District Court decision in favor of Jake Baker, a former University student suspended by then-University President James Duderstadt for posting "degrading, humiliating and frightening" stories on Internet newsgroups.
The chief judge and two circuit judges comprised the panel. Their decision represents the court's view, but it may also be appealed before the entire court.
The case initially gained national attention two years ago and helped break open the new field of Internet law.
"This is the leading Internet case that sends a message to the government," said David Cahill, Baker's civil attorney. "They have to tread carefully in the new media."
The charges brought against Baker in February 1995 were the result of an FBI agent's affidavit, citing language in a story posted on an Internet usegroup involving the name of one of Baker's female University classmates.
Baker was suspended Feb. 1, 1995, when Duderstadt invoked Regent's Bylaw 2.01. The provision allows for emergency suspension of students who may be a threat to the University community or themselves.
"At the time we took the action we did, we felt that was the appropriate thing to do," Associate Vice President for University Relations Lisa Baker said last night. "I don't think it has any effect on the University's reputation."
Baker was then arrested Feb. 9, 1995, after a University alum read Baker's sexually explicit story on the Internet, involving the rape and torture of one of Baker's classmates.
"(Baker) was thrown out of the University badly and illegally," Cahill said, adding that the rule used to suspend Baker had not been used in seven years.
Following his arrest by federal agents, Baker was twice denied bail by U.S. District justices. After more than a month in prison, Baker was freed when U.S. District Court Judge Avern Cohn dismissed the federal threat charges.
"I don't think (the decision) comes as any great surprise," said Anne Marie Ellison, chair of the Student Rights Commission for the Michigan Student Assembly. "It really does leave the door open as to how the First Amendment applies to the Internet."
Baker, now a student at the University of Pittsburgh, was reached last night but said he could not comment until he talked to his attorney.
"He was very pleased and welcomed the decision," Cahill said. "Jake's happy it came to an end."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan submitted a friend of the court brief to both the U.S District Court and the Court of Appeals asking that the charges brought against Baker be dismissed.
The Michigan Chapter of the ACLU supports the decision, but cannot say whether or not it will be upheld.
"It may not all be over. They may ask for a rehearing in the Court of Appeals or from the U.S. Supreme Court," said Howard Simon, executive director of the Michigan chapter ACLU. "Ultimately, whether on the Internet or in writing, if we're going to preserve First Amendment rights, there's got to be a distinction between fantasy and threats."
The court dismissed the charges because they did not meet three elements of the law: "a transmission in interstate ... commerce, a communication containing a threat, and the threat must be a threat to injure [or kidnap] the person of another," the Court of Appeals ruling stated.
The court ruled that Baker's case met the first clause but did not qualify under the second or third. The court stated Baker's actions met the first of the three clauses because his transmissions were between Canada and the United States.
Laurie Burns, director of the University's Information and Technology Division, said Baker did not violate any ITD policies.
"He basically followed every policy we had. He posted stories (in areas) set aside for those types of stories and he warned people," Burns said.
However, Baker's actions in "communicating a threat" did not qualify because he was not sending the transmissions to his classmate. Baker's actions were disqualified under the third section because he never communicated his ideas to his classmate directly.
Experts on the First Amendment said the ruling is not a landmark in constitutional law.
"I don't think [the decision] will make much of a difference, " said Joan Lowenstein, an Ann Arbor media lawyer. "The effects will be limited to the specifics of the case."
Legal experts said that as new media technology evolves, so does an uncharted area of law.
"The computer technology is going to take us into a realm of First Amendment applications that was not within the contemplation of the constitution," said Victoria Roberts, president of the State Bar of Michigan.
Cahill said the ruling affects right to privacy issues more than freedom of speech.
"The threat which is what those opposing are talking about, you can't overstep the bounds of common ordinary speech becuase someone feels threatened," Cahill said. "Jake's the one who feels vindicated."
AJA DEKLEVA COHEN/Daily
David Cahill, one of Jake Baker's attorneys, sits in his home office last night.