A federal judge today issued an injunction against a new Massachusetts law that tried to apply its "matter harmful to minors" law to the Internet. Because it's difficult to ascertain someone's age on the 'Net, that attempt turned out to be far too broad.

The fuss began back in February, when the state supreme court ruled that the "matter" which could harm minors did not legally include electronic transmissions. The result: overturning a conviction of a man who engaged in lurid instant messaging chats with someone who he believed to be 13 (in reality, "she" was the police, who arrested the man when he tried to meet the "girl").

Alarmed at the prospect of sexual predators texting away to minors, the state legislature acted quickly—perhaps too quickly. In April, the "harmful to minors" law received a brief update—not more than a couple of paragraphs—but they had profound implications for free expression. The new law extended "harmful to minors" to the Internet. In addition to smutty books, films, pamphlets, pictures, plays, dances, and even statues (!), Massachusetts decided that the "matter" which might harm minors would now include:

electronic mail, instant messages, text messages, and any other communication created by means of use of the Internet or wireless network, whether by computer, telephone, or any other device or by any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.

This would certainly affect instant messages, but it was so broad that it would also encompass entire websites. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) put it when it filed suit against the law, "Due to the very nature of the Internet, virtually every communication on the Internet may potentially be received by a minor and therefore may potentially be the basis for prosecution."

"Because Internet speakers have no means to restrict minors in Massachusetts from accessing their communications, the Act effectively requires almost all discourse on the Internet—whether among citizens of Massachusetts or among users anywhere in the world—to be at a level suitable for young children," said the complaint.

Federal judge Rya Zobel agreed today, issuing a preliminary injunction on the April amendments for violating the First Amendment right to free speech. The real issue here is that the new law contains no requirement that the matter "was purposefully disseminated to a person [the sender] knew to be a minor." Without this "intent" requirement, the law was likely to sweep up large volumes of legal, Internet-mediated speech meant for adults.

Zobel agreed that the ACLU and other plaintiffs were correct in calling the law overbroad and that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their complaint.