States Jump Into
Internet Legislation
By PAMELA MENDELS
July 19, 1996
In Virginia, a new law forbids state
employees from using computers at work to visit sexually
explicit sites on line. In New York, a bill that makes it a
crime to post indecent material in cyberspace to anyone
under 17 years of age passed both houses of the Legislature
on July 2 and is now headed for the Governor's desk.
A new Georgia law seeks to prevent people
from misrepresenting themselves on line by, among other
things, using psuedonyms.
And in a number of states existing child
pornography statutes are being amended to criminalize
Internet-related child pornography.
Enforcement of the Communications Decency
Act, the Federal law that sought to regulate indecent
material in cyberspace, is on hold pending a Supreme Court
challenge to a finding by a three-judge Federal panel last
month that the law is unconstitutional. But in the last year
or so, about 20 state legislatures have quietly enacted or
considered legislation of their own to regulate on-line
speech.
Supporters of most of these efforts say
they are reasonable measures to shield society, especially
children, from sexually graphic material. But opponents,
raising concerns similar to those voiced about the
Communications Decency Act, say that many of laws and
proposals could end up stifling legitimate free expression.
Since March 1995, at least 17 states have
considered legislation that would, in some way, regulate
on-line content, according to the American Civil Liberties
Union. And at least 11 have actually passed such laws.
"Some are very much like the
Communications Decency Act and try to regulate indecency to
minors or to create a `harmful to minors' standard for
content," said Ann Beeson, a lawyer for the ACLU.
"Some simply expand existing obscenity or child
pornography laws to the Internet." A handful, she said,
seek to limit harassing or annoying communication over
computer networks.
Beeson said that even the best-intentioned
statutes, like those seeking to control child pornography on
the Internet, are often flawed by vague wording that could
end up catching legitimate speech in its net. Furthermore,
she said, it was unreasonable to try to force a
sophisticated global means of communications to conform to
an array of different Internet content laws enacted by
various states.
"These state bills create 50
different standards," Beeson said. "Suddenly, you
are subject to the jurisdiction of all these states. That is
a really tricky legal issue that will have to be worked
out."
James K. O'Brien, a Republican delegate
who sponsored the new Virginia law, counters that state
legislators are simply carrying out a responsibility to put
common-sense brakes on a powerful new technology.
"The Internet is almost beyond its
embryonic stage and is emerging as a force in business,
government, entertainment and the news media," O'Brien
said. "So how do you want to address the problems it
creates? Do you want to let it go 10 years, and then address
the problem?"
O'Brien added: "As legislators, we
are well aware of freedom of speech and privacy rights. And
we are also aware of our responsibilities as protectors of
the common good."
Supporters of the New York bill, which
seeks to protect children from on-line sexual solicitation,
say that its intent is to stamp out preying by pedophiles on
young people over computer networks.
"There have been several cases where
minors have been lured on the Internet by adults, either
lured into sexual activities or disseminated indecent
material," said Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, a
Democrat who introduced the bill. "Some have staged
themselves as other minors. Basically, these perverts are
moving from the playground to the Internet."
But Christopher T. Dunn, legal director of
the New York Civil Liberties Union, said he worried about a
portion of the law that makes it a crime, punishable by up
to four years in prison, to disseminate sexually explicit
material on line in a way that could be viewed by children.
Dunn said the law could limit indecent material for adults
as well.
"We don't have any problem with their
criminalizing adults' luring children to sexual
activity," Dunn said. "Our concern is limited to
the criminalization of the placement of so-called indecent
material available to adults on the Internet. That material
is clearly protected by the First Amendment."
Not all the state laws center on children.
In Virginia, the law that went into effect on July 1
prohibits state employees -- with the exception of state
police -- from using state computers to obtain
"sexually explicit content" unless they get
written permission to do so.
Robert G. Marshall, the Republican
delegate who introduced the bill, said he was motivated in
part by reports he had heard of a growing workplace problem
of employees' viewing indecent material on the Internet on
company time. "There is no constitutional obligation to
furnish state employees on government time with this
material, period," Marshall said.
Opponents of the Virginia measure say it
is poorly crafted, and could end up chilling legitimate
research by, for example, state university professors in
fields ranging from art history to sociology to medicine.
"There are lots of things the
government officials can do to control this," said
Robert M. O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center
for the Protection of Free Expression, a nonprofit
Charlottesville, Va.-based group that opposes the new law.
"It can limit use of state-owned computers to official
business, limit the hours computers are used, forbid their
use for unlawful purposes. But the one thing it seems to me
they could not do is restrict computer use on content
grounds."
O'Neil said he believed that much of the
push for state laws was being prompted by fear of the new
technology and, because the medium is so new, a scarcity of
legal precedent to help legislators assess what passes
constitutional muster in cyberspace.
"I think this is a field in which
there is a lot of anxiety," O'Neil said. "There
are reports of abuse and misuse of computers. I have no idea
how much pressure to enact these laws the state lawmakers
actually receive. But indecency on line is a hot topic, a
highly visible one. And it's one in which no can say in
great confidence: `You flat out can't do this; it's
unconstitutional.' "
Related Sites
ACLU
Fights Georgia Internet Fraud Law
New
York Senate site
Information
about the Virginia law
List
of states with Internet laws or proposed legislation
TOP
