Lost in cyberspace

If Charles Neville had used the telephone to pester his ex-girlfriend, if he’d stuck threatening notes on her door or stapled defaming flyers on utility poles, he’d be looking at a criminal charge of harassment, perhaps even terrorizing. He’d be a prime candidate for a civil suit.

Instead, this 55-year-old Kennebunkport resident used e-mail and a homemade Web site. As a result, he’s got the criminal-justice system tied up in knots because no one’s quite sure how the rules, even the laws, of the real world apply to cyberspace.

This is just the latest scoop of applesauce from the Internet-is-different crock. E-merchants say they, unlike their Main Street counterparts, shouldn’t have to bother collecting sales taxes. E-auctioneers don’t want to have to report customer proceeds to the IRS the way terrestrial brokers and bankers do. On planet Earth, merchants have to keep adult magazines and videos out of the reach of children. Not so on the ‘Net. Last year, here in Maine, an accused kiddie pornographer beat the rap by convincing the judge that the smut he was transmitting could have been — not was, mind you, just could have been — perfectly legal photographs digitally enhanced to look like images of children being raped.

From Vice President Gore on down, everyone’s gushing about the Internet. The convenience of this new tool can be remarkable, the immense fortunes already made are astonishing, but the true wonder of the age is how successful the Internet industry has been in convincing the public, the lawmakers and, worst of all, the courts that the Internet is a miracle that must remain unfettered. In fact, the connection between those immense fortunes and the Internet industry’s futuristic huckstering is hard to miss.

The Internet is an electron-fast way to send a letter. It can be the world’s biggest library/department store/yard sale. It’s the most efficient way mankind has yet devised to shout something from the rooftop. But it’s not above the law.

Being on the Internet does not entitle merchants to a 5-percent advantage over Main Street merchants or allow traders to dodge the IRS or give smut peddlers a freedom of speech beyond that enjoyed by book and video stores. It’s not a haven for child molesters and it must not become a license for abusive ex-boyfriends.

The basic code of human conduct did not have to be rewritten when Gutenberg invented his press, nor did the definition of threatening with the advent of the telephone, nor did the concept of libel and slander with television. The Internet is an advance on those technologies, nothing more. If the courts understood that, Kennebunk police would not be left wondering if it is a crime to send threatening e-mails.

The good news about Charles Neville is that he not only harassed a woman electronically, he stalked her at home and at work and for that he was arrested. A lawyer might have advised him to stay in cyberspace where, at least for now, he would have been safe.