THE MEDIA COALITION INC.

E-MAIL: MEDIACOALITION@MEDIACOALITION.ORG

Memo in Opposition to Connecticut Bill 6962

The members of Media Coalition believe that Connecticut House Bill 6962's would violate the First Amendment by banning the dissemination to minors of material harmful to minors by the Internet. The members of Media Coalition are trade associations representing most of the book and magazine publishers, booksellers, librarians, magazine distributors, movie, recording and video game manufacturers, and recording and video retailers in Connecticut and the rest of the United States.

While the members of Media Coalition understand the desire to prevent minors from gaining access to material that is "harmful to minors," but it is important to remember that this material has serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value for adults, who therefore have a First Amendment right to obtain it. By redefining "Promote" to include "dissemination by computer network," H.B. 6962 would restrict what is available for adults on the Internet to what is appropriate for minors. It amends the Connecticut "harmful to minors" law as if there were no difference between a computer transmission and a book or magazine. However, cyberspace is not like a bookstore. Publishers are posting excerpts of their forthcoming fiction on computer bulletin boards. Magazine publishers are producing computer versions of their publications. A law that attempts to restrict the availability of material that is harmful to minors can have a "chilling effect" on these companies, prompting them to suppress constitutionally-protected material. There is no way to know whether the person accessing "harmful" material is a minor or an adult. As a result, the effect of banning the computer dissemination of material "harmful to minors" is to force a provider to deny access to adults for fear they could be a minor.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already declared unconstitutional two federal laws that restricts the availability of matter inappropriate for minors on the Internet, Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997); ACLU v. Reno II, 217 F.2d 162 (3d. Cir. 2000). Also, each court that has considered similar state laws that restrict dissemination by Internet of material harmful to minors has been enjoined by a federal court. In addition to First Amendment deficiencies, the various courts have also ruled that the laws violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves to Congress the regulation of interstate commerce and prevents a state from imposing laws extraterritorially, see ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149 (10^th Cir. 1999); Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 238 F.3d 420 (6^th Cir. 2000); PSINet v. Chapman, 108 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2000); American Libraries Ass’n v. Pataki 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D. 1997). The States of New York and New Mexico agreed to pay over $450,000 and $150,000 respectively in legal fees and costs, primarily to the ACLU.