I am the lead opponent against this new law that infringes on our Constitutional right to free speech.
The bill was passed without the consultation and input from industry experts and without deliberative study. A corporate officer of an Internet Service Provider did testify in opposition about the bill.
Most legislators do not understand the Internet and its is truly revolutionary impact on democracy throughout the world through the low cost global dissemination of information. Fearing technology and the unknown consequences, there was a knee-jerk rush to regulation.
The bill was "sold" under the guise of protecting tradenames, trademarks and other intellectual property on the Internet. A BellSouth lawyer summed it up best in a public letter writing "it is probably overkill and unduly complicating to make acts of trademark infringement, misrepresentation and passing off on the Internet a crime under state law. There is already ample legislation and common law in place to effectuate the intent of this law."
As reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Shari Steele, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation dismissed the bill as "poorly crafted" and probably unconstitutional. Said Steele "It looks like another attempt by legislators who don't know what they are doing to try and legislate what they don't know about. They should get online."
A major problem with the law and one that probably renders it unconstitutional, is the language that states "It shall be unlawful for any person...to transmit any data through...or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox (e-mail)...if such data uses any individual name...to falsely identify the person..."
Since most e-mail addresses, including those randomly given by Compuserve and Prodigy, do not identify the individual, this bill may make such use unlawful. Additionally, there are constitutional protections for those who write books under "pen" names and for those who distribute political flyers anonymously or through the use of newly-created "front" organizations. (See U.S. Supreme Court 4/19/95 decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission Synopsis and Complete Opinion). How about political dissidents, corporate whistle blowers, battered spouses, and many others who need to communicate on-line but fear retribution if their identity were known.
Another problem with the bill relates to the mechanics of the Internet itself. One powerful tool of the Internet is in the seamless ability to use an electronic link to visit another web site. It is a form of promotion or advertising and most "linkees" would probably be flattered to be put on another's site as a link. However, linking without permission may be unlawful. There already is technology available to prevent access to a site through subscription-based passwords. However, HB1630 states: "It shall be unlawful for any person...to transmit any data...if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark...which would falsely state or imply that such person...has permission or is legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark..."
This potential prohibition touches on a gray area but would still serve to chill proliferating Internet expansion and usage.
Additionally, it would be virtually impossible to "police" the Internet within Georgia's borders, since this is a global network.
The passage of this bill highlights the ignorance of the legislature and the author in matters relating to the Internet. At time of passage, the author admitted that he had never been on the Internet, except looking over a colleagues shoulder at work.
Defenders of this law are now becoming scarce. Existing law already covers the noncontroversial provisions. I wonder if even the author can defend the law on its merits.
This law has given Georgia a black eye and has sent a message to the world that we are afraid of and do not welcome technology. We have become the first state in the nation to regulate the Internet in non-obscenity matters and have joined Singapore and North Korea, no friends of Democracy or free speech, in policing the net.
As U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell wrote in striking down the CDA: "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion."
I concur with these comments as do many other legislators, even those who at one time mistakenly supported the bill. Many local and national observers are confident that if and when this law is challenged in court, it will be ruled unconstitutional.
For more information including many articles in state and national publications, go to http://www.gahouse.com/docs/whatsnew/parsons.htm. I welcome your input and comments.
Rep. Mitchell Kaye
the 37th District, East Cobb
mkaye@gahouse.com