Judge: No Free Speech for Web Names

C O N C O R D, N.H., Dec. 11 -- Free speech may prevail elsewhere on theInternet, but not when it comes to typingwww.(pickanyobscenity).com.

At least that’s one federal judge’s opinion, ruling in an adultWeb site case.

Before Judge Steven McAuliffe was the question of whether theFirst Amendment protects World Wide Web addresses. Do they serve tocommunicate, or to navigate?

Navigation, Not Communication

McAuliffe found for navigation.

Free speech advocates think the judge grossly underestimated thecommunicative power of domain names.

“They are more than just signposts,” said Barry Steinhardt,associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “If theyweren’t, then millions of dollars would not be spent to buy themost desirable names and protect copyrights.”

McAuliffe ruled in a case filed by Lynn Haberstroh, of Raymond,N.H., and National A-1 Advertising, of Philadelphia. The plaintiffswanted to include obscene or vulgar words in addresses for theiradult Web sites.

Network Solutions Inc., appointed by the government to registerNet addresses, had rejected some 30 requested addresses, arguingthey contained words prohibited by its 1996 decency policy.

McAuliffe said Network Solutions did not violate the plaintiffs’rights in its refusal.

“Unlike streets, sidewalks and parks, the space occupied bysecond-level domain names does not constitute a traditional publicforum for discussion and debate,” he said.

The judge agreed the online world has become a forum forpublic debate, but said that does not mean that each and every Webaddress is a soapbox.

Web addresses don’t function the same as billboards or radiobroadcasts, McAuliffe said.

Appeal Being Considered

Haberstroh’s lawyer said his client was considering an appeal,but Richard Cohen, president of National A-1, said his companydoesn’t have the resources to fight McAuliffe’s Sept. 28 ruling.