In a case that could break new ground regarding hate speech on the
Internet, a Los Angeles man is standing trial for sending a mass email that
denigrated and threatened Asians.
U.S. attorneys prosecuting the case say the venomous email clearly violated
the civil rights of the 59 University of
California at Irvine recipients, most of whom were Asian.
But federal attorneys defending Richard Machado argue the email was a
"stupid prank" that Machado never intended to be taken seriously. To
bolster their claim, they intend to call an expert witness who will testify
that rash and inflammatory remarks are commonplace on the Internet.
The trial, which began yesterday, is likely to go to the Santa Ana federal
jury by the end of the next week at the very latest. The outcome of the
trial could presage how much weight courts will give to messages sent via
email.
"Everyone agrees that the email was sent," said Dean Steward, the attorney
in charge of the Santa Clara branch of the federal defender's office. "The
question is the legal effect." Steward explained that threats made via
email, which can be sent to hundreds of thousands of recipients, is
different from one-on-one threats made through more traditional means such
as the U.S. mail or the telephone.
"We're talking about an entirely new area that hasn't been litigated yet,"
Steward said.
The defense may have an uphill battle, however. In his email, which was
sent from a UC Irvine computer lab in September 1996, Machado blames Asians
for all crime on campus and he promises to "kill everyone [sic] of you
personally" if they don't withdraw from the university.
Federal prosecutors allege in court papers that Machado "intentionally
worded [the email] the way he did because he wanted to be specific enough
to get a reaction and to get people angry." If convicted, Machado could
spend ten years in prison.
Jeff Brown, who heads San Francisco's public defender's office, said
Machado's attempt to draw a distinction between threats sent via the
Internet was likely to fail. "The character of the speech is determined by
what an objective person thinks it would mean," said Brown. "Just because
it's on the Internet doesn't give you any special privileges or immunities."