Punishment Fits E-Mail Crime

The sentencing of the first person convicted of a federal hate crime on the Internet appears appropriate and aptly tailored to the crime.

Richard Machado was a UC Irvine dropout when in 1996 he sent e-mail messages threatening to “hunt down and kill” several dozen Asian Americans at UCI.

Recipients of the threat had varying reactions. Some shrugged it off; others genuinely felt endangered. The federal government’s reaction was straightforward: Threats are a crime whether spoken, mailed the usual way, or e-mailed.

Last year, prosecutors wound up with a hung jury, with nine jurors refusing to convict Machado. Most said they thought he was disturbed, not a criminal. Machado testified he sent the messages because he was bored.

But after a second trial, the government won a conviction. This month U.S. District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler imposed a $1,000 fine on Machado and put him on probation for a year. Appropriately, she also ordered him to attend racial tolerance counseling and to stay away from UCI’s computer labs and video arcade. Stotler did deny a prosecution request that she order Machado to use computers only at work or school.

Machado, a 21-year-old UCI dropout and resident of Long Beach, had spent a year in jail awaiting trial and was not subject to more jail time under the law. The two trials dramatized the popularity of the Internet, which unfortunately has proven as popular with hate groups as with those using it for research, information and online friendships.

The limits of free speech on the Internet have been fiercely debated. So has the key issue of the government’s ability to police the information superhighway.

An assistant U.S. attorney said federal agents are investigating another possible hate crime involving threatening messages sent to Latino members of the Cal State Los Angeles faculty. Charges have not been filed in that case.

Prosecutors said they believed Machado’s trial and conviction sent the message to Internet users that no matter how freewheeling the discussions may come, no matter how inventive the invective, the line would be drawn at threats. That’s a message that needs to be sent.