The state high court's June 7 ruling came in the nation's first case involving a state law designed to protect Internet users from deceptive commercial e-mail.

"Consumers and businesses pay a heavy price in money and lost time because of those who use the Internet to distribute deceptive commercial mailings to people who never asked for them," Attorney General Christine Gregoire said.

Last week's decision involved a lawsuit filed by the attorney general's office on Oct. 22, 1998. The state accused an Oregon man, Jason Heckel, and his company, Natural Instincts, of violating the state's anti-spam law by sending unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam, to millions of Internet users. The e-mails were aimed at selling a booklet titled, How to Profit from the Internet.

Washington's law, which went into effect in June 1998, was one of the first in the nation to regulate the sending of spam. The law prohibits sending unsolicited commercial e-mail messages that contain misleading information in the subject line, use a third party's domain name without permission or misrepresent their point of origin.

The lawsuit alleged that Heckel used a misleading subject line that read, "Did I get the right e-mail address?" to entice recipients to download and read his entire message. The suit also alleged the defendant had posted an invalid return e-mail address to which recipients were unable to respond.

In March 2000, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson dismissed the case against Heckel and his company on grounds the state law was "unduly restrictive and burdensome" and violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general's office appealed that ruling directly to the state Supreme Court.

"The First Amendment does not protect misleading commercial speech, and the commerce clause does not, either," Gregoire said in a statement announcing the filing of the appeal.

In its June 7 opinion, the court found that "the only burden the Act places on spammers is the requirement of truthfulness, a requirement that does not burden commerce at all but actually facilitates it by eliminating fraud and deception."

The case will now be remanded to the Superior Court for trial.

The measure, the focus of a hearing June 7 by members of the House Judiciary Committee, would also require libraries to establish penalties for people who access obscene material on their computers or expose youngsters to that material.

Public schools and libraries with Internet access would be required to use filtering software or other technology to keep obscene material from young people.

But the cost of constantly upgrading software and dealing with legal challenges could take a big bite out of library budgets, said Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia.

Supporters of the bill said technology restrictions were necessary and had parental support. Opponents, including state library officials and civil liberties groups, called filters unreliable and said portions of the bill may be unconstitutional.

"We need to protect our children from being exposed to inappropriate content," said Rep. C. Allan Egolf, R-Cumberland, the bill's sponsor.

Gary S. Gildin, a Penn State law professor speaking for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed state bill violated free-speech guarantees.

Cynthia K. Richey, an Allegheny County library official, said individual areas should be able to make their own decisions as to what kind of content-controlling measures they would like to see in public libraries.

She said the filters were not necessary, citing a consumer magazine report this year that said the technology often screens out political and sexual-health Web sites that are not obscene, while tech-savvy youngsters can often find ways to circumvent them altogether.

"It's a canard that young people are accessing inappropriate sites for hours on end," said Richey. "That is inconsistent with our experience in Allegheny County, and from what I hear from libraries across the state."

But Internet usage policies have not deterred pornography surfing in public libraries in the country, said David Burt, a representative of N2H2 Inc., which provides filtering technology to public schools.

Burt said the cost to libraries and schools would be minimal, ranging from $10 to $50 per workstation.

Introduced by Assemblyman Steve Corodemus, the bill would require libraries and schools to develop a plan to shield children from negative material. The legislation would require library staff to monitor minors' use of the computers. The bill also calls for the terminals to be placed where a staff person can "view the terminals used by minors at all times."

President of the New Jersey Library Association, Joseph Keenan, said the bill would make it impossible for some libraries to provide patrons with Internet access. That would deepen the "digital divide" between people who can afford computers and those who can't, he added.

The legislation would hinder the efficient running of public libraries in New Jersey, said Keenan, who is also director of the Elizabeth Public Library.

"We have over 100 Internet computers," Keenan said. "Many of those are not in the line of sight of the librarian's desk. What that basically means is they've got to be pulled out."

Many librarians will say the best way to manage the use of computers is to "pull the plug," Keenan said.

School districts and libraries could apply to the state for partial or full reimbursement of the filtering software costs. The bill would require the Legislature to annually appropriate funds to cover the reimbursements.

The state treasurer could withhold up to 10% of funding from schools and libraries that fail to comply.

The bill must now go to the full General Assembly for a vote.

Previous

Washington attorney general appeals dismissal of case against spammer
Lower court had struck down law restricting the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail.  04.07.00

Related

Legislators, courts work to restrict child pornography in cyberspace
Meanwhile, Massachusetts lawmakers consider bill limiting access to online smut at libraries.  06.05.01

Lawmakers push anti-spam bills
But many direct marketers say they have a First Amendment right to make e-mail pitches.  07.22.02