State laws in New York and Georgia that sought to restrict speech on the Internet were ruled unconstitutional Friday, setting powerful precedents in ongoing government efforts to regulate online content.
In New York, a law similar to the federal Communications Decency Act was struck down on grounds that it violated the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. US District Court Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled in American Library Association v. Pataki that the law violated the clause because it sought to regulate transactions taking place entirely outside the state's borders.
American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Ann Beeson, who argued the case, cited a 1945 Supreme Court ruling striking down an Arizona law that burdened interstate commerce by limiting the length of railroad trains in the state to 14 cars. Preska said that the Internet met those same standards as trains because its reach crosses state borders. The judge did not rule on whether the state law violated the First Amendment.
"The judge was waiting to hear the Supreme Court's decision in the CDA, but decided that in any event it doesn't matter because under this commerce law, it is too burdensome for people to speak at all in this medium," Beeson said after the decision was handed down. "Hopefully, it will say to all legislators who are considering legislating the Internet, 'You can't do that.'"
The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling on the CDA sometime in the next two weeks.
The New York law, which took effect in November, carried penalties of up to four years in prison for electronically transmitting material defined as harmful to minors. Besides the American Library Association, the 15 plaintiffs in the case included the New York Library Association, Association of American Publishers, Magazine Publishers of America, Panix, and the ACLU.
In Georgia, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a state law that made it illegal to use a name that "falsely identifies" a speaker on the Internet, such as pseudonyms or anonymous email addresses. The 14 plaintiffs, including the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued that the law was a violation of the First Amendment because it was too broad. They said that it did not distinguish between a user's intent to deceive or defraud and a wish to remain anonymous to protect privacy or communicate unpopular views.
Beeson said the rulings lend momentum to the effort to fight state regulation of Internet content. "No matter what the Supreme Court does [about the CDA], these two state laws have definitely been struck down, and this will allow us a better chance in the at least 17 other states considering content-based legislation."
