[Type text]

Case Report #1
Prepared By:

Laura Fawbush

Ted Passmore

Ricardo Lavayen

Case:
2.4 – Jake Baker
Prepared for:

CIS150-77
 Case 2.4- Jake Baker
1.) In the case of Jake Baker there are many aspects that could be viewed as an ethical
dilemma. However, the most important ethical dilemma is: do Jake Bakers 1st Amendment rights
outweigh the safety of the students at the University of Michigan (UM)? If left to his activities
what could happen?

2.) The role of technology in the Jake Baker case has several facets. The use of email and
USENET bulletin board exposed Jakes thoughts to the world and by doing so made safety
concerns on the UM an issue. An alumnus of UM saw one of his snuff stories that actually
named a current student at UM; this prompted the report to the University which led to the
beginning of Jakes legal issues. The charges against Jake were for transmitting threats across
state lines which was done via email.

3.) Stakeholders and their rights

1. Jake Baker – Jake has a right to free speech providing that what he says does not incite
riot, crime, or transmit direct threats.
2. Students at UM – The students have a right to safety and freedom from threats.
Certainly these rights are granted to all human beings without exception.
3. Federal Bureau of Investigations – Right and duty to protect citizens from anyone
posing a threat to society.
4. University of Michigan administration – The administration has the right to protect their
reputation and a duty to provide adequate protection to their students.

4.) Courses of Action

1. File charges against Jake for transmitting threats.

a. Jake Baker - Filing charges against Jake would in effect stop his internet
activities; however it would also violate his 1st amendment rights to free speech as
well as taking away his personal freedom. Being charged with this crime, even if
found innocent, will inevitably affect his ability to act on his desires in the future
because he would be one of the first people that the authorities would look at if a
girl was missing in an area in which he lived.

[2]
CIS150-77 October 3, 2010
 Case 2.4- Jake Baker
b. UM students - There could be several consequences to the students at the
university stemming from filing charges against Jake. They would have the peace
of mind that Jake had been brought to justice and removed from campus. Since
they had been so closely affected by this type of threat, they may not have as
much naivety when it comes to the issue of threats, or possible future threat. In
other words, the cat is out of the bag, Pandora’s Box has been opened. Even
though Jake is gone, they will always worry of the future possible threat.
c. Federal Bureau of Investigations –The FBI would be the agency responsible for
filing charges against Jake for interstate transmission of threats so their
involvement would be major. The case would be thrust into their hands and they
would take the lead as to what played out from there. Their job is to enforce
criminal laws and bring justice to those who violate the law. It would be their job
to investigate and develop a case for the possible wrongdoings of Jake.
d. University administration - The arrest of Jake will alleviate the immediate need
for the University administration to safeguard their students from him. However,
the arrest will make the headlines and the administration will need do damage
control in the media to maintain the perception of safety on their campus.

2. Do nothing but set up surveillance to carefully watch Jake’s activities.

a. Jake Baker - If Jake is put under surveillance and he is unaware that his activities
are being scrutinized he will continue with his life as normal unless he crosses the
line and makes a specific plan of action. If he did make a specific threat while
under surveillance, this course of action could lead to charges against him that
would hold up in court.
b. UM students – While there are possible consequences for the student body if the
authorities choose to go the surveillance route, the students would not be aware of
the situation. Being unaware would put them in danger because they would not
have the opportunity to be hyper-vigilant about their own safety.
c. Federal Bureau of Investigations - If the course of action was to do nothing, the
FBI would play a major role if surveillance was used to monitor Jake Baker’s
activities. They would be in charge of closely watching Jake and they would be

[3]
CIS150-77 October 3, 2010
 Case 2.4- Jake Baker
held to blame if he were to slip under the radar and act on his fantasies. The FBI
has substantial evidence thus far, especially since Jake was supposedly sending
emails to another country, to move forward and intercept his emails. They could
also back off the case and let more local authorities handle the future actions
taken surrounding his possible wrongdoings. They could also come in later in the
investigation, once local authorities had built a stronger case against possible
actions Jake may take.
d. University administration - If nothing is done by the authorities other than to
watch Jake’s activities the University administration would need to more diligent
than normal in regards to the safety of their students. If something happened
during the time of surveillance that put one of their students in harm’s way, the
administration would undoubtedly be held accountable in the eyes of the parents
who have charged them with the safety of their children.

3. Permanently suspend Jake regardless of the criminal charges and outcome.

a. Jake Baker - If Jake were to be permanently suspended regardless of his guilt or
innocence this would negatively affect his future. Any University he went to
would be aware of his situation and the stigma associated with the suspension
would follow him, leading to possible discrimination against him.
b. UM students - If Jake were suspended permanently, there would be consequences
for the student body. Students would have a new idea as to the consequences for
participating in fantasy emails, which include the possibility of crimes. They may
not be as creative or let their minds run so wild when it came to these activities.
Students may also be involved in helping the university set guidelines. They
would have the relief that Jake is not on campus taking classes with them and
living in their dorm. However, some students could have the worry that Jake may
retaliate against the university and student body by acting out his crimes. Jake
may become embarrassed or upset that he can’t be a student and get away with
what he was doing, and plot to carry out what he had written, or come up with
something else that would be harmful to a larger group.

[4]
CIS150-77 October 3, 2010
 Case 2.4- Jake Baker
c. Federal Bureau of Investigations - If Jake Baker were permanently suspended, the
FBI would not play a direct role in this course of action. Suspension would be the
burden of the UM. The consequence of watching Jake would probably not go
away though, as they would be the authority in this matter.
d. University administration - The consequences to the administration would be
great with this course of action. On one side they could be viewed as close
minded which could lead to a reduction in enrollment and discredit them in the
educational community as a beacon of free speech. On the other hand this action
could be seen as a message to the parents and students, both present and future,
that they take their duty to protect their students seriously and will not hesitate to
do what is necessary to carry out this duty.

4. On the University level, institute rules and regulations to prevent future occurrences.

a. Jake Baker - If the university instituted rules and regulations that prohibited Jake
from expressing himself and satisfying his desires through interactive fantasy this
could lead Jake to possibly acting out in other ways in order to satisfy his needs.
b. UM students - There would be consequences for students if the university enacted
rules and regulations to prevent future occurrences. Students play a major role in
the policies and decision making at public universities. Every student would have
their opinion about the Jake Baker incident and some would make their opinions
heard. The administration would interact with the student
c. Federal Bureau of Investigations - If the course of action taken was to institute
university rules and regulations to prevent future occurrences, the FBI would not
be directly involved. They may be called upon by the University to help in
formulating guidelines, but would probably not play a direct role in instituting
them.
d. The University administration - The administration would be seen as narrow
minded and potentially damage their reputation in such a way that they could not
recover. This could possibly open them up to litigation for the violation of the 1st
amendment rights of their students.

[5]
CIS150-77 October 3, 2010
 Case 2.4- Jake Baker

5.) The deontological perspective deals with the rights and duties of an individual. In this
particular case Jake’s individual rights are violated. The government violated Jake’s 1st
Amendment right to free speech. The government stated that Jake’s stories were immoral. Based
on this assumption, the federal government took preventative actions and argued that Jake’s that
Jake’s stories were written with intent and he planned to act on his intent the near future. A
negative right comes into to play; the government has a duty to allow Jake free speech.

However, Jake has the duty of identifying if his actions were wrong or right. Thus, the federal
law has the obligation of providing safety to all individuals in the society, preventing and
protecting them from sexual harassment via mail and telephone calls. Jake used interstate
communications to make a threat against Jane Doe who is identified as a character in a series of
stories he posted on alt.sex newsgroup and the other characters were fictional characters. Baker’s
case was not only about obscenity and threats; it was also being closely watched by advocates of
free speech on the internet.

From a deontological perspective if you cannot universalize an action then it is not moral. If the
government agrees on putting Jake in jail they must also jail hundreds of talk radio hosts and
thousands of other Usenet posters as well. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that a person can go
around saying that he hates women, identifying them as objects for his plans to rape, torture, and
kill them. The federal government can’t take this for granted just because any action as kill
someone has not been done yet.

6.) From a teleological perspective Baker’s email represents a threat not only for the students of
the UM but also he would be considered a dangerous threat to society. A teleological perspective
focuses on consequences. The action taken by the federal government was from a big picture
perspective. Doing nothing also has consequences, thus the government didn’t want to take this
case for granted. This could have been a crime that first starts with a guy with a plan, including
specific names and places among his sexually sadistic fantasies.

Prevention is the best way to stop any actions that could harm the society in the future. The
threats to a particular girl sequentially transforms into a threat to the society and the UM

[6]
CIS150-77 October 3, 2010
 Case 2.4- Jake Baker
environment. In a teleological perspective the well being of society is more important than one
single person. More importantly this perspective focuses on how a single person’s action can
measure the benefits and harms of the entire group which is affected by this action. In Jake’s
case, the government attempted to save lives by preventing any action that could harm the
society in the future. From this perspective Jake Baker is not a reasonable person, he was
fantasizing about raping, torturing, and murdering another person, and also finds this enjoyable
by discussing his deviant plans with another person

7.) Our normative recommendations are as follows. We feel that the best course of action is to
permanently suspend Jake regardless of the criminal charges or other outcomes. Jake is the only
person who will be negatively affected by our recommendation, however; he brought this upon
himself. The University has the right to protect their reputation, as well as a duty to protect their
students. Continued success of the University is dependent upon future enrollment. The public
perception of campus safety is a factor taken into consideration when deciding where to send
your children to school thus, allowing someone like Jake to remain on campus could negatively
affect enrollment. We are not discounting the fact that this course of action has other
consequences that could be viewed by some as a denial of free speech but rather, we feel that the
safety of the students is the overriding factor.

Additionally, the university should institute rules to prevent future occurrences of this nature.
This could be accomplished by drafting an Acceptable Use Policy and requiring that all students
acknowledge receipt of this policy. The policy would need to encompass acceptable use of the
university’s web server, email, and all other technological devices on campus. Specifically, the
policy of most concern in regards to this case would be using the university server to conduct
activities that could be construed as threatening to the student body. We are not saying that
students should not be allowed free speech but rather they must not use the university facilities or
devices to transmit threats, perceived threats, or indulge in other illegal activities.

We are not saying that Jake’s despicable actions were right. However, you cannot lock him up
for the possibility of committing a murder. Action needs to be taken to remove him from
campus, as would be done with anyone else who did not respect their fellow students.

Reference: http://www.spectacle.org/795/baker.html

[7]
CIS150-77 October 3, 2010