|
home > legal work
Legal Docket
Free Speech and Commerce Clause
The King’s English
v. Shurtleff
The King’s English
v. Shurtleff
Free Speech and Commerce Clause
During their 2005 general session, Utah
legislators passed H.B.
260, “Amendments Related to Pornographic and Harmful Materials.” Meant
to restrict children’s access to harmful material on the Internet,
the law instead unconstitutionally limits the free speech rights of
Internet content providers, may negatively impact Internet users who
have no wish to restrict the sites to which they have access, acts as
a prior restraint on Internet service providers’ speech, and violates
the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Under the new
law, the Attorney General’s Office must create an “adult
content registry” containing the URLs of all Internet sites worldwide
that are not “access restricted” and that contain “material
harmful to minors”—speech that is unlawful to intentionally
distribute to children yet is lawful for adults to access. Once contacted
by the Attorney General’s Office, Utah-based content providers
will either have to restrict access to their sites through an as-yet-to-be-defined
rating system or remove the offending content to avoid being charged
with a third-degree felony crime. Additionally, the bill requires Internet
service providers, at customer request, to block access to sites listed
on the adult content registry as well as to those sites they can identify
as containing material harmful to minors. Further troubles with the
law include technical problems with blocking systems, a vague definition
of what it means to be a Utah-based content provider, and the lack of
an appeals process for content providers who wish to challenge the Attorney
General’s designation that their sites contain material harmful
to minors.
On June 9, 2005, the ACLU of Utah, along with cooperating attorneys
from Howrey LLP, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Media
Coalition, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law, citing
free speech and interstate commerce violations. The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of: the American Booksellers Foundation
for Free Expression; the ACLU of Utah; the Association of American Publishers,
Inc.; the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund; Computer Solutions International,
Inc; the Freedom to Read Foundation; Nathan Florence; The King’s
English Bookshop; W. Andrew McCullough; Mountain Wireless Group, Inc.;
the National Association of Recording Merchandisers; the Publishers
Marketing Association; Sam Weller’s Bookstore; the Sexual Health
Network, Inc.; and the Utah Progressive Network.
On August 25, 2006, the district court entered a stipulated preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the challenged provisions of HB 260 until final judgment in the case. Discovery was stayed until the end of the 2007 General Session of the Utah State Legislature, during which time defendants hoped to amend the problematic parts of the statute. On March 19, 2007, Governor Huntsman signed into law HB 5, “Internet Sexual Content – Protection of Minors,” which repealed the adult content registry as well as the requirement that Internet service providers, at customer request, block access to sites that would have been on the registry. Although HB 5 eliminated some of the issues in our lawsuit, there are several outstanding problems with the 2005 law, and on April 30, 2007, we filed an amended complaint.
In a November 29, 2007 opinion and order, the district court denied an attempt by the state to dismiss our challenge to the Utah Harmful to Minors Act. The court found that eight plaintiffs have standing to challenge the definition of “harmful to minors” and the application of the law to Internet transmissions. The court also found that the ACLU of Utah and Utah artist Nathan Florence have standing to challenge another new provision that requires mandatory labeling of websites as “harmful to minors” in certain circumstances. The decision now permits the case and its challenge to the Utah “harmful to minors” and mandatory labeling provisions to proceed on its merits.
Return to top of page
|
|
|