A federal judge has added Alaska to the steadily growing list of states who have been smacked down for trying to censor the Internet. Legislation signed by Alaska Governor Sean Parnell last year would have held adults criminally liable for distributing sexually explicit material to minors over the 'Net.
A coalition of plaintiffs filed suit last August, alleging that the statute violates the First Amendment. Yesterday, Judge Ralph Beistline agreed and struck down the law.
Like earlier court decisions on online free speech, Beistline's decision hinged on the fact that the Internet lacks a reliable mechanism for verifying the age of Internet users. "Individuals who fear the possibility of a minor receiving speech intended for an adult may refrain from exercising their right to free speech at all," he wrote. "The Government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children."
The state of Alaska had argued that the law was only designed to target sexual predators who sent pornography to children. But the court rejected this argument, noting that it's not what the law actually says. "If the Legislature intends this statute to only criminalize the grooming of children for sexual abuse, the Legislature can say so," Beistline wrote.
The plaintiffs in the case included the ACLU of Alaska and industry groups such as the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and the Entertainment Merchants Association. Brick-and-mortar businesses were concerned with the law because it restricted offline as well as online distribution, and because retailers could be liable even if they sold material to a minor without knowing it was sexually explicit, or without knowing that the buyer was in fact underage. The judge ruled that the burdens to online speakers were sufficient to invalidate the law, and so did not consider these other arguments.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs pointed out that Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia have all enacted similar online indecency laws—and every one of them has been struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. Indecency legislation in Utah is currently on hold while the courts decides whether to strike it down, too. The only legislation that has survived court challenge is an Ohio bill that was limited to person-to-person communications in which the sender knew the recipient to be a minor.
The video game industry's free speech victory at the Supreme Court earlier this week was also part of a long string of judicial victories. Numerous lower courts had struck down video game censorship laws in other states before the issue reached the Supreme Court.
So why do legislatures keep passing these censorship bills? It's possible that their authors are simply ignorant of our nation's free speech jurisprudence. Or maybe passing broad censorship bills—even ones that will inevitably be struck down in court—is good politics. Either way, the whole charade seems like a waste of court time and taxpayer money.
A coalition of plaintiffs filed suit last August, alleging that the statute violates the First Amendment. Yesterday, Judge Ralph Beistline agreed and struck down the law.
Like earlier court decisions on online free speech, Beistline's decision hinged on the fact that the Internet lacks a reliable mechanism for verifying the age of Internet users. "Individuals who fear the possibility of a minor receiving speech intended for an adult may refrain from exercising their right to free speech at all," he wrote. "The Government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children."
The state of Alaska had argued that the law was only designed to target sexual predators who sent pornography to children. But the court rejected this argument, noting that it's not what the law actually says. "If the Legislature intends this statute to only criminalize the grooming of children for sexual abuse, the Legislature can say so," Beistline wrote.
The plaintiffs in the case included the ACLU of Alaska and industry groups such as the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and the Entertainment Merchants Association. Brick-and-mortar businesses were concerned with the law because it restricted offline as well as online distribution, and because retailers could be liable even if they sold material to a minor without knowing it was sexually explicit, or without knowing that the buyer was in fact underage. The judge ruled that the burdens to online speakers were sufficient to invalidate the law, and so did not consider these other arguments.
Around and around we go
Yesterday's ruling represents the latest in a long string of victories by civil liberties groups challenging Internet censorship laws. Ever since the Supreme Court struck down the censorious portions of the federal Communications Decency Act in 1997, periodic efforts to censor the Internet at the state level have been made. Many have failed.In their complaint, the plaintiffs pointed out that Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia have all enacted similar online indecency laws—and every one of them has been struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. Indecency legislation in Utah is currently on hold while the courts decides whether to strike it down, too. The only legislation that has survived court challenge is an Ohio bill that was limited to person-to-person communications in which the sender knew the recipient to be a minor.
The video game industry's free speech victory at the Supreme Court earlier this week was also part of a long string of judicial victories. Numerous lower courts had struck down video game censorship laws in other states before the issue reached the Supreme Court.
So why do legislatures keep passing these censorship bills? It's possible that their authors are simply ignorant of our nation's free speech jurisprudence. Or maybe passing broad censorship bills—even ones that will inevitably be struck down in court—is good politics. Either way, the whole charade seems like a waste of court time and taxpayer money.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment