The First Amendment and the Internet:
A.C.L.U. v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 N.D. Ga. 1997
Here, the "mini - CDA" of Georgia was struck down on this case on the ground that it appeared to impose content based speech restrictions that were not narrowly tailored in light of the state interest at stake. In addition, the court also held that, as drafted, the statue was overly board and void for vagueness.
Besides New York, at least thirteen other states have enacted laws which regulate Internet content. Like New York’s, Georgia’s "baby CDA" was enjoined down by a federal court.
The relevant provisions of the Georgia law made it a crime for:
The court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their overbreadth claim for similar reasons. The court expressed the traditional constitutional concern that statutes which are overbroad with respect to speech have "the potential to chill the expressive activity of others not before the Court" and concluded that the statute was not drafted with the precision necessary for such laws. In particular, the court noted that the statute prohibits various types of protected speech such as "the use of false identification to avoid social ostracism, to prevent discrimination and harassment, and to protect privacy." Finally, the court held that the statute likely was unconstitutionally vague for three reasons. First, it did not give fair notice of the scope of conduct it proscribes to computer network users because various phrases, such as "falsely identify," "use," "falsely imply," and point of access to electronic information" were not defined. Second, the court expressed concern that the statute’s vagueness created a risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because its "failure to specifically articulate proscribed conduct affords prosecutors and police officers substantial room for selective prosecution of persons who express minority views. Third, the court ruled that the statute and chilled the plaintiffs’ free expression, citing their affidavits documenting that they had self-censored due to their inability to discern exactly what the statute prohibited.