Federal and state laws have always played a role in protecting minors from criminal victimization. For example, Congress has enacted laws dealing with child pornography, child luring, and child sexual exploitation. However, given its immediacy, anonymity, and accessibility, the Internet offers a forum, through social networking sites, for harassment and other social ills committed against minors. The Internet's nuances present new challenges for federal and state legislators and law enforcement personnel responsible for defining and prosecuting criminal use. This is especially true with the relatively new crime of Internet "harassment." The term Internet harassment usually encompasses "cyberstalking," "cyberharassment," and/or "cyberbullying." These activities, when committed against minors, may cause emotional harm. Recent high-profile cases involving teen suicides demonstrate the potentially severe consequences of this emotional harm. As such, legislators are faced with determining how to handle the problem. Various laws, not specific to minors, govern traditional crimes such as stalking and harassment, which generally include a threat of harm. These laws generally criminalize unlawful conduct that fails to rise to the level of assault or battery. Recognizing that the Internet can be used to stalk or harass individuals, Congress and some states have amended "traditional" stalking and harassment statutes to include Internet activity. However, these statutes are generally inapplicable in situations in which minors suffer emotional harm due to embarrassment or humiliation. When, if ever, should criminal sanctions be imposed for these incidents? Should legislators amend traditional stalking and harassment statutes to cover these situations? Or should legislators create new crimes covering such activity? Should such activity conducted by a neighbor, for example, be prosecuted on the federal level because the Internet was used? Or should prosecution of such activity remain at the state level? These are just some of the questions legislators may consider in addressing the problem of Internet harassment of children. While these policy considerations are noteworthy, this report focuses on the applicable constitutional constraints legislators may consider in drafting legislation in this area. Generally, states assert jurisdiction over law enforcement authority within their borders. However, Congress may legislate in the state law enforcement arena under certain constitutionally permissible circumstances. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." There are three categories of activities subject to congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause. Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, although a threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress may regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce). As the Internet is an instrumentality of interstate commerce, Congress has the power to enact appropriate legislation. Pursuant to this authority, Congress has enacted laws designed to protect children. Congress has enacted several statutes designed to address protection of children on the Internet. These statutes run the gamut from establishing new crimes (i.e., use of interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor) to expanding the scope of existing crimes (i.e., child luring). In addition, Congress has enacted laws designed to curtail both the downloading of inappropriate content by children and the uploading of impermissible personal information from children. The Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is directed to the protection of children less than 13 years of age from operators of commercial websites or online services. COPPA mandates several requirements for sites that either direct their services to children under the age of 13 or have actual knowledge that their general audience site is collecting information from such children. The act applies to individually identifiable information about children, and requires, among other things, that sites post a clear notice of their data collection practices on their home pages and on every page where information is requested. Another federal statute, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), restricts access by minors to materials commercially distributed that are harmful to minors. However, COPA has never taken effect because a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against its enforcement pending trial. The injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court, which, on June 29, 2004, remanded the case for trial. On March 22, 2007, a federal district court found COPA unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement. On July 22, 2008, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2007 decision. Finally, the narrowest statute, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), applies only to public libraries and schools and mandates that they employ software filters to restrict access by minors to inappropriate material. CIPA has withstood challenge to its constitutionality. 18 U.S.C. § 2425 prohibits the use of a facility of interstate commerce, such as a computer connected to the Internet, to transmit information about a minor under the age of 16 for criminal sexual purposes. Individuals convicted under this statute face a punishment of a fine and/or maximum imprisonment of five years. In addition to the aforementioned protections, federal and state legislators have enacted several criminal provisions designed to punish Internet users who hurt minors physically. Some laws that traditionally protect children, such as those used to combat child pornography and luring, have been expanded to apply to situations where an individual uses the Internet to facilitate the crimes. For example, "child luring" consists of an adult knowingly and intentionally inducing a child, by means of a computer, to engage in sexual intercourse or sexual conduct. A majority of states have laws that specifically prohibit electronic luring or solicitation of minors by computer for the purpose of inducing them to engage in illegal sexual conduct. On the federal level, child luring is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which prohibits the use of any facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity or prostitution, or to attempt to do so. Violators of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) face a punishment of a fine and a minimum imprisonment of 10 years or life. Internet harassment is a new phenomenon that presents a challenge for law enforcement, legislators, educators, and parents. The term Internet harassment lacks a uniform definition but usually encompasses cyberstalking, cyberharassment, and/or cyberbullying. It is worth noting that most cyberstalking and/or cyberharassment statutes cover both adult and minor victims. If one were to categorize these activities based on danger or greatest potential harm, cyberstalking would be the most dangerous, followed by cyberharassment and then cyberbullying. Generally, cyberstalking includes a credible threat of harm, while the other two do not. Cyberharassment and/or cyberbullying may cause embarrassment, annoyance, or humiliation to the victim. Some individuals use the terms cyberharassment and cyberbullying interchangeably, while others reserve the term cyberbullying to describe harassment between minors, usually within the school context. In a criminal context, these activities are predicated on a perpetrator's desire to inflict emotional harm, usually in the form of humiliation or embarrassment. Legislators are faced with several questions in tackling this problem as it pertains to minors. When, if ever, should individuals be criminally liable for causing humiliation or embarrassment to another? Should new laws be created to cover such action? Or, is it sufficient to amend existing laws? Cyberstalking refers to the use of Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications to stalk another person. A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages. Or a cyberstalker can urge other Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a cyberstalker may post a controversial or enticing message on a board under the victim's name, address, phone number, or e-mail address, resulting in the victim receiving subsequent unwanted responses. Each message, whether from the actual cyberstalker or others, may have the intended effect on the victim, even though the cyberstalker's effort tends to be minimal. Due to the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and the victim, it is sometimes difficult for law enforcement to identify, locate, arrest and subsequently prosecute the offender. The anonymity of the Internet also provides new opportunities for cyberstalkers. A cyberstalker's true identity can be concealed by using different Internet service providers (ISPs) and/or by adopting multiple screen names. Anonymity leaves the cyberstalker in a somewhat advantageous position. Unbeknownst to the target, the perpetrator could be in another state, around the corner, or in the next cubicle at work. The perpetrator could be a former friend or lover, a total stranger met in a chat room, or simply a teenager playing a practical joke. State and local law enforcement agencies are sometimes hampered by jurisdictional limitations. A cyberstalker located in a different city or state than the victim may present more of a challenge for local authorities investigating an incident. Even if a law enforcement agency is willing to pursue a case across state lines, it may be difficult to obtain assistance from out-of-state agencies when conduct has been limited to harassing e-mail messages without the occurrence of actual violence. Several states have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws. For example, California legislators amended the state stalking law to expressly include stalking via the Internet. Under California law, a person commits stalking if he or she "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and ... makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family." The term "credible threat" includes threats that are (1) "performed through the use of an electronic communication device, (2) implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements."