We were in Court this morning defending internet free speech. Our client published a blog about a candidate for office that contained news and commentary--generally types of speech that are exempt from regulation. But, the statute at issue only exempt traditional media--television, radio, newspapers, magazines and other periodicals.  Internet speech is left out, probably because the law has simply not kept pace with the way that news production and consumption patterns have been changed by the internet.  As the Supreme Court has said, internet speech is entitled to just as much protection as speech in traditional media (maybe even more protection that speech on television gets).

We took on this case because of our commitment to keeping the internet free and open as a fora for the free exchange of ideas--particularly political ideas.  In many ways, internet news sites more closely resemble the news media from our founding era than do massive global media conglomerates. Like in the early days of our country, internet news is often produced by individuals or small groups, who do the reporting, the writing, the editing, the layout, the publicity all by themselves.  Like those early papers, news on the internet is often suffused with opinion (sometimes, as in our case, strongly held, forcefully expressed opinion).  And sometimes, as in our case, information on the internet is published anonymously or under a pseudonym--that was a common feature of publishing in the early days of our country.

The Court this morning had lots of questions for us and for the other lawyers, and it will probably be a while before we get a decision.  As I was leaving the courthouse, I took a moment to think about how many ACLU lawyers throughout our history have gone to court to defend freedom of speech.  The forms of speech have changed a great deal over our 90+ year history, but I don't think our commitment to the First Amendment has diminished a bit.