Sex, laws and cyberspace: Organized interest litigation before the United States Supreme Court (1957--2004)

This research analyzes organized interest litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court in sexually explicit speech cases between 1957 and 2004 to examine the Internet's effect on libertarian and proscriptive organizations' rates of participation and legal strategies. The project tests the hypothesis that a technological development such as the Internet will create legal uncertainty---the unique communicative components of the Internet raise questions about feasibility and desirability of regulation---and prompt organized interests to increase litigation and alter their legal arguments to advance their interests before the U.S. Supreme Court.; To test this hypothesis, organized interest participation at the Supreme Court---sponsorship of litigation and filing of amicus curiae briefs---was examined for the years 1957--2004. This longitudinal analysis allowed for an examination of the long term effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California (1973) to illuminate patterns of organized interest activity prior to the Internet. In addition to quantitative analysis, organized interest participation in the legislative and legal processes precipitating each of the Internet Supreme Court cases was examined to evaluate the role that organized interests played in facilitating sexually explicit speech litigation in the Internet era. Finally, a content analysis of organized interests' briefs in Supreme Court Internet cases was performed to examine organized interests' legal arguments in the Internet era.; The results indicate that both libertarian and proscriptive organized interests have increased their rates of litigation before the Supreme Court in the Internet era. In addition, the majority of these organized interests identify the Internet as a unique communicative development. Libertarian organized interests suggest that the Internet is an unprecedented democratic medium that should not be subject to government censorship. These organizations point to the borderless nature of the Internet and argue that the Miller test should not be applied to the Internet. In contrast, proscriptive organized interests argue that the Internet is a pernicious medium that must be subject to government regulation to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit material and offer a variety of suggestions for government regulation including the implementation of national community standards.