The first state in America to pass laws specifically addressing real life stalking was California in 1990.
Until this change in the law the Police were powerless to act unless the target was actually physically attacked. Since then almost every state in the USA has passed legislation making stalking a criminal offense.
Old habits die hard however, and many contemporary stalking victims in America are still told that nothing can be done unless a physical assault takes place.
The California laws against stalking passed in 1990 did not specifically address online stalking. Nevertheless it is useful to review them in relation to the Internet as a starting point for any discussion of cyberstalking and the law.
The California Penal Code [ Section 646.9. Stalking. 1990 (Amended 1994) ] defines the crime of stalking as follows:
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety... is guilty of the crime of stalking
The California Code further defines harassment as:
...a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.P<> Three years later, in 1993, the California Civil Code was updated to include civil remedies for stalking victims.
The California Civil Code [ Section 1708.7: Stalking; Tort Action; Damages And Equitable Remedies. 1993 ] runs as follows:
A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all the following elements of the tort:
(1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was
to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff.
(2) As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared
for his or her safety...
(3) ...The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in Paragraph
One, made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable
fear for his or her safety... and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly
and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern
of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct.
The California Civil Code defines the term "harassment" in the same way as the California Penal Code (see above).
California's initiative in this area was quickly followed by many other States passing similar (although not identical) legislation. A complete list of US State Laws on stalking can be found at the National Victim Center site on the World Wide Web.
With the rapid development of the Internet in the early 1990s, stalkers have found a new area and new tools to use to stalk new victims online. State laws against stalking were and still are very slow to respond to this particular online problem. Only a few US states currently include online harassment in their stalking laws.
The first US State to include online communications in its statutes against stalking was the state of Michigan in 1993.
The Michigan Criminal Code [ Stalking: Section 28.643(8). Definitions. 1993. Sec. 411h. ] makes the following definitions:
(a) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series
of 2 or more separate non continuous acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose.
(b) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that
may, but does not necessarily require, medical or other professional treatment
or counseling.
(c) "Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is
not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause
a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes
the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally
protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
(d) "Stalking" means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing
harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel
terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and
that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated,
threatened, harassed, or molested.
(e) "Unconsented contact" means any contact with another individual that is
initiated or continued without that individual's consent, or in disregard of
that individual's expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued.
Unconsented contact includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(i) Following or appearing within the sight of that individual.
(ii) Approaching or confronting that individual in a public place or on private
property.
(iii) Appearing at the workplace or residence of that individual.
(iv) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that
individual.
(v) Contacting that individual by telephone.
(vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual.
(vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased,
or occupied by that individual.
(f) Victim' means an individual who is the target of a willful course of conduct
involving repeated or continuing harassment.
Notice that unlike the California anti-stalking laws, Michigan's laws include online communications. Section (e)(vi) in the Michigan statute above refers to "sending mail or electronic communications" as one example of "unconsented contact".
In addition, Michigan has a second more serious stalking statute called Aggravated Stalking. In Aggravated Stalking: [ Section 28.643(9) Definitions. 1993. Sec. 411i ] the law adds the presence of physical threats as an aggravating factor in stalking:
(b) "Credible threat" means a threat to kill another individual or a threat to inflict physical injury upon another individual that is made in any manner or in any context that causes the individual hearing or receiving the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of another individual.
A number of other US States besides Michigan have anti-stalking laws that include electronic/cyberspace harassment. These states include: Arizona (Arizona Criminal Code (1995): 13-2921), Alaska (Alaska Criminal Law Sec. 11.41.270), Connecticut (Connecticut Penal Code Sec. 53a-183), New York (New York Penal Code § 240.30), Oklahoma (Oklahoma (1996): §21-1173), and Wyoming (Wyoming 6-2-506). Many other states, including Florida, Georgia, California and Colorado have still not updated their stalking laws to recognize cyberspace as a valid location for stalking.