FIRST AMENDMENT FOCUS

This week’s First Amendment Focus spotlights Larry Walters, one of the most gregarious and ubiquitous First Amendment attorneys in the biz. Walters is a frequent speaker at convention seminars, including the most recent InterNext seminars in Las Vegas.FIRST AMENDMENT FOCUS

This week’s First Amendment Focus spotlights Larry Walters, one of the most gregarious and ubiquitous First Amendment attorneys in the biz. Walters is a frequent speaker at convention seminars, including the most recent InterNext seminars in Las Vegas. Walters has been interviewed for the popular news programs, Fox News, 48 Hours, Fox Files, and The Full Nelson. All of these interviews can be seen on Walter’s website FreeSpeechLaw.com.

Walters is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association for which he regularly presents lectures on Free Speech and the Internet. In 1997, he formed the Florida Bar’s First Amendment Law Committee, which he currently chairs. Since the mid-90’s Mr. Walters has devoted his practice to Internet and First Amendment law, representing webmasters across the globe in connection with the regulation and protection of online content. (For more background on Larry Walters, click here.)

YNOT News caught up with Larry Walters shortly after the conclusion of InterNext…

YNOT: Larry, what were your general impressions of InterNext?

YNOT: Isn’t this scenario a catch-22? This could mean more clients for you and other attorneys, yet this also risks diluting this industry even further…
Walters: It’s our hope that the new people coming into this industry don’t just throw up a site and violate the law, thereby becoming an easy target for the law, and thus giving the industry a bad name; Our hope is that they hire the proper professionals, such as First Amendment attorneys. There is a lot of free information on our website, as well as on other attorney sites, and we have traveled the country speaking about these issues, so we would hope that even people who can’t afford a lawyer, or for those who simply refuse to spend the money to get real legal advice can learn something through the articles that I write…and from the seminars.

YNOT: How many business cards did you get from InterNext? I imagine you received a nice wad of them…
Walters: I don’t count them, but just like in my email inbox, I get a lot of webmasters who are looking for free legal advice, as is the case with most lawyers in this industry. The problem is if I were to respond to all the inquiries I receive, I would do nothing but that, and we’d have to close up shop and there would be a First Amendment lawyers industry. So [I] do get a lot of people just trying to pump [me] for information. I think more and more people are starting to realize that none of the lawyers that attend the conventions are doing so strictly for their health; obviously we’re looking for business, we’re looking to represent people in the industry and to take the industry to the next level by providing quality legal representation, so we can have a legally compliant industry that’s advancing the cause of the First Amendment, as opposed to those who are blatantly breaking the law.

YNOT: So do you think webmasters are starting to realize that free legal advice will only get them so far?
Walters: I think so … but everyday I get emails and calls from people across the country, saying, “I just have a quick question… Can you give me some initial advice and then I will decide on whether or not to retain you….” What people don’t realize is that legal malpractice insurers [which lawyers have to have] prohibit lawyers from giving out legal advice on specific situations. As much as we even might like to do that, it’s not a good idea from a liability standpoint to do so … until the attorney-client privilege relationship is established.

YNOT: What about the information that’s disseminated on your website? Is that not legal advice?
Walters: None of the information I have on FreeSpeechLaw.com is legal advice … the information is general about the law, including the concepts. When you start giving people specific advice about specific situations, that’s when you tread water.

YNOT: While the Supreme Court will decide COPA, there are other key issues at stake for adult webmasters, correct?
Walters: There’s much more at stake than COPA. All four of cases [that will be decided by the Supreme Court] will affect the adult industry. Two of these cases will affect the online adult industry very dramatically. We all know that there’s still no ruling on COPA. The Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 is the virtual child porn case that’s being challenged, and that could criminalize a lot of youth or teen content that’s currently out there, even if the models are over 18. There is the case handled by our firm, Alameda Books vs. Los Angeles which will discuss the issue of secondary effects [of porn on a community]. This case will have a bearing on whether you can operate an adult Internet business, [such as] a voyeur house, or having anything to do with adult Internet out of your home. The question is whether these adult ordinances that affects cabarets and bookstores can be applied across the board to a home-based Internet business. These issues are being tossed around by the Supreme Court in the Alameda Books case.

Editor’s Note: Larry Walters informed YNOT News that 20 minutes before this interview was conducted, he had received word that the fourth case (COPA, CPPA, Alameda Books being the first three), Thomas vs. Chicago Park District went unanimously against this industry 9-0. Walters commented on the case just before press time:

“If the High Court’s decision in this case is any indication of how the Justices intend to rule on the other three First Amendment cases still pending, we’re in trouble. None of the Justices, even the more traditionally liberal ones, filed a dissenting opinion, or seemed remotely concerned with the potential Free Speech implications of approving a licensing scheme like the one at issue in this case. The First Amendment was initially included in the Bill of Rights because of the concerns with licensing laws requiring permission to print information. The same concerns were present in the Thomas case, yet none of the Justices acknowledged it. Hopefully, online speech will fare better in the Court than protest speech did in this case, however this decision is of great concern to First Amendment lawyers, and those individuals who depend on strong Free Speech protections to survive.”

YNOT: Care to comment on whether or not you think COPA will be upheld?
Walters: There’s a better shot at COPA [not being upheld] because of the unanimous decision striking down the Communications Decency Act. It appears that the court will look differently at online speech than, say, a protest or a video store. For some reason, they hold Internet speech in a higher esteem and have said that it’s entitled to the highest level of protection under the First Amendment, so given that, there’s a better chance at winning the COPA case. It may go either way, it’s impossible to predict. I think we should be prepared, though, if all of these cases go against this industry. With COPA it’s a mixed bag. If it’s upheld that will help out paysites, AVS sites and credit card, age-verified sites that don’t have any free tours with explicit activity. Many of the paysites are hoping COPA is upheld. The unfortunate part, if COPA is upheld, is that it would eliminate the argument that the obscenity laws are unconstitutional because if it’s upheld it would mean that the court agrees that community standards can apply to the Internet.

YNOT: Why are you so passionate about First Amendment issues? How did you get into this field?
Walters: I got into First Amendment and anti-censorship work because I firmly believe that people have the right to say, read, and think and do things that they want to do without government intervention. The adult Internet aspect was an outgrowth of my First Amendment practice before there was an Internet, when I was defending videotapes and dance establishments. Once the Internet exploded, it really struck me that this was virgin territory, this global means of communication that leveled the playing field by allowing the little guy to compete with the biggest corporations … This medium, I decided, needed protection. The government was going to first try and regulate it, tax it, censor it to do all the things they’ve tried to do thus far … and it struck me that I needed to devote a substantial amount of effort to keeping the Internet free from censorship.