American Civil Liberties Union v. Miller

The court ruling in essence established a right to communicate on the Internet and underscored the complexity of balancing trademark rights and freedom of speech. While Judge Shoob narrowed his ruling to specifically focus on the protection of the Internet under First Amendment free speech rights, his ruling had the effect of stemming the rush among state legislatures in the United States to regulate Internet activity. The ruling specifically relied on existing legislation that was initially crafted to address fraud and deception in print; in so doing, the similar nature of publishing and communications in both print and Internet media was established.

However, the Internet holds some very unique qualities as well, not seen in other media. The system is neither owned nor controlled by a government or any private organization. In essence, those who use it actually control the content and guidelines for use. Despite public pressures to regulate cyberspace, courts initially demonstrated a great reluctance to impose limitations. The Miller decision appeared to recognize these differences in that trademark restrictions may not apply as fully on the Internet as elsewhere. Therefore, the ability of trademark owners to control their use on the Internet is limited. Over 130 bills were before Congress by the end of 1997 and each state was evaluating how to follow the lead of the short-lived Communications Decency Act that the Supreme Court largely ruled invalid in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997). Proposals for state legislation assigning some liability to Internet service providers were developed that would establish procedures for plaintiffs to follow in proving harm.

The ability of states to regulate Internet activity was further questioned in American Libraries Association v. Pataki (1997) striking down a New York law due to the burden it placed on interstate commerce through cyberspace. The court held that development of the Internet should not be paralyzed by inconsistent legislation from various states. The Miller and Reno cases combined provide a strong constitutional protection to activities over the Internet and limit states abilities to impose restrictions.