<<  <  >  >>

Anonymity and

H.B. 1630, an amendment to the state's

most commentators on this side of the issue,

Computer Systems Protection Act, making it

failed to say why McIntyre would not apply in

pseudonymity are

a misdemeanor for one "knowingly to trans-

cyberspace.

built into the

The Supreme Court said in Reno v. ACLU4 0

mit any data through a computer network

architecture of

[using] any individual name . . . to falsely

that "[t]hrough the use of Web pages, mail

identify the person . . . transmitting such

exploders and newsgroups, [any Net user]

the Net.

data."34 Immediately a group of plaintiffs,

can become a pamphleteer."41 As the Court

including the American Civil Liberties Union

recognized, a Web page is an electronic

and the author of this paper, brought suit in

leaflet. However, if proponents of Internet

federal district court in Georgia challenging

anonymity legislation have their way, the

the constitutionality of the law.3 5 The district

same text may be treated differently depend-

ing on whether it is printed on paper or

court granted a preliminary injunction

stored in electronic form. The proponents

against enforcement of the law, holding that

therefore incur a responsibility to explain

"the statute's prohibition of internet trans-

why Internet communications are to be treat-

missions which `falsely identify' the sender

ed differently from print communications.

constitutes a presumptively invalid content-

based restriction" under McIntyre.36

There are a limited number of legal theo-

ries that advocates of regulation have used to

The court concluded that the statute

justify such treatment. The two most impor-

was vague and overbroad because it was

tant ones have already been rejected by the

"not drafted with the precision necessary

Supreme Court. Radio and broadcast televi-

for laws regulating speech. On its face,

sion have been more tightly regulated than

the act prohibits such protected speech

print media on the basis of a theory of "spec-

as the use of false identification to avoid

trum scarcity,"42 and a "pervasiveness" doc-

social ostracism, to prevent discrimina-

trine first raised in the Pacifica43 ("seven dirty

tion and harassment, and to protect pri-

vacy . . . a prohibition with well-recog-

words") case has been used to justify the regu-

nized First Amendment problems."  3 7

lation of speech disseminated by both broad-

cast and cable media. Although no one can

The preliminary injunction was later con-

reasonably argue that the Internet is a "scarce"

verted into a permanent one and the state of

medium, proponents of Internet censorship

Georgia decided not to take an appeal, so the

relied very heavily on the argument that the

district court's ruling became the final and

Net is "pervasive," meaning that it comes into

definitive statement on H.B. 1630.

the house and may present speech inappro-

priate for minors. This year, in affirming the

Critiques of Cyberspace

unconstitutionality of the Communications

Decency Act,44 the Supreme Court decisively

Anonymity

held that the Internet is not "scarce": "[T]he

Internet can hardly be considered a `scarce'

"The ultimate implication, I believe, is

expressive commodity. It provides relatively

that to achieve a civilized form of cyberspace,

unlimited, low-cost capacity for communica-

we have to limit the use of anonymous com

-

tions of all kinds."4 5 Nor is it a "pervasive"

munications," David Johnson wrote in "The

Unscrupulous  Diner's  Dilemma  and

medium under Pacifica: "[T]he Internet is not

Anonymity in Cyberspace."38 In a Columbia

as `invasive' as radio or television."46

Law Review note published in October 1996,

Another argument sometimes raised by

Noah Levine called for "a simple statute . . .

proponents of Internet speech regulation is

requiring administrators of anonymous

even less supported by case law: that margin-

remailers to maintain records of users in a

al speech on the Net is more dangerous than

manner which allows for the identification of

the same speech in print because it reaches

senders of specific messages."3 9 Levine, like

larger audiences more easily. For example, in

4