State censorship

[Steve Hoffman]

States Keep Up Efforts on Internet Restrictions

Jeri Clausing
NY Times 2/19/98


When the Supreme Court last summer struck down the Communications
Decency Act, the decision was celebrated as a landmark guaranteeing
that the Internet would be free from censorship. But the ruling
hasn't slowed state attempts to regulate speech and content on the
global network.

Since July, at least four states have introduced their own CDA-like
laws, joining the 13 other states with such statutes already on the
books.

"These state Legislatures don't seem very interested in reading
Supreme Court opinions," said Ann Beeson, a lawyer for the American
Civil Liberties Union, which helped win the ruling against the CDA
as well as state versions of the law in New York and Georgia.
"Unfortunately, that is often true. ... In other words, state
Legislatures are constantly passing laws that are clearly
unconstitutional."

"What we hope is that our court rulings at least will help us to
lobby more powerfully," she said. "As bills get introduced, our
state affiliates rush in and give the lawmakers copies of the court
rulings. If we're lucky, that will prevent bills from passing. If
not, then we have to consider litigation."

The states are not alone. One of the original CDA sponsors, Senator
Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, is sponsoring what is being called
the sequel to the CDA. More narrowly defined than the original CDA,
the bill would require commercial Web site operators that distribute
material "harmful to minors" to restrict access to adults with
credit cards or personal identification numbers. Coats contends that
the more narrow definitions address the court's concerns. The ACLU
insists it is still unconstitutional.

In addition, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, has filed a
bill that would require all schools that get federal funds to hook
up to the Internet to install filtering or blocking software.

In fact, many of the state laws are based on past or present
Congressional proposals or other state laws, including the New York
State law that has been ruled unconstitutional.

This year, there are four new state bills that are particularly
troublesome to the ACLU, Beeson said. Those are in Tennessee, Rhode
Island, Illinois and New Mexico.

The Tennessee bill is the most sweeping. It calls on Congress to
create a special domain code for adult-oriented sites; requires
rules for the use of state computers, with sanctions for violations;
requires school and libraries to use blocking software, with
criminal liability for teachers and librarians who fail to comply,
and makes Internet service providers liable for third-party
distribution of harmful material.

The Rhode Island proposal would criminalize the use of computers for
"immoral or illegal purposes" involving children. "Every person who,
by means of computer, knowingly compiles, enters, transmits, makes,
prints, publishes, reproduces, causes, allows, buys, sells,
receives, exchanges, or disseminates any notice, statement,
advertisement, or minor' name ... for the purposes engaging,
facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting unlawful, sexual
conduct and/or any felony or misdemeanor shall be guilty of a
felony," it says.

The New Mexico bill would criminalize the transmission of indecent
material to minors and would require the use of labeling or
screening to block indecent material. 

The Illinois bill would criminalize the transmission of "harmful
material" to minors.

The New Mexico bill is crafted after the New York State law that was
ruled unconstitutional by a federal court on grounds that it
attempts to regulate interstate commerce, which falls under the
authority of Congress, not the states.

The sponsor of that bill, Senator Stuart Ingle of Portales, is well
aware of but seemingly unconcerned about the constitutional
questions of his bill. He said it was drafted by the state Attorney
General's office in response to the case of a young Clovis, N.M., boy
who was lured by a computer operator in El Paso.

"When his family found out about this, they looked at New Mexico law
and we didn't have anything at all to prosecute with," he said. "The
Attorney General's office basically came up with this bill to
somehow have some kind of control. Not that it is anything that we
can absolutely control in any sense or fashion, but if it is repeated
time after time at least we have a law to prosecute with." 

Ingle emphasizes that his bill is not an effort to regulate the
Internet or censor speech.

"We are not trying to do anything," he said. "We are just trying to
have something where if a young person is being induced by an adult,
at least we have something they be charged with." 

Beeson said the continued movement to regulate the Internet is
somewhat of a natural course.

"I find it a little depressing, but not that surprising," Beeson
said. "When we got into this on the CDA, we knew there would be a
whole wave of litigation that would probably last years that would
slowly carve out what the rules will be in this medium. That's what
we are seeing."

"Like any new medium, we are seeing this urge for lawmakers to want
to regulate it," she said. "We are seeing this fear-mongering have
with all new medium that it poses some danger to morality."

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END