(Direct Newsline)— and Hawaii have added their weight to the legislative onslaught against legal, adult content in commercial electronic mail and introduced so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail bills.

However, Hawaii’s bill contains what appears to be a typographical error that would set the fee too low to make its registry viable. The typo mirrors one that delayed a similar law in Michigan.

Four states are known to have introduced legislation that would set up a do-not-e-mail registry for minors this year. Iowa and Georgia are the other two.

Michigan and Utah are already operating such registries. Illinois shelved a child no-e-mail registry bill recently.

Connecticut’s Senate Bill 46 would require the state’s Department of Consumer Protection to set up a system that would allow parents, guardians and school districts to register e-mail addresses and other “contact points” of minors as off limits to content it is illegal for minors to view or use under Connecticut state or federal law.

Hawaii’s Senate Bill 2200 would require the state’s Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to set up a similar registry.

Registrations in both states would remain valid for three years or until the child turns 18.

Connecticut’s bill would require marketers who want to include material in their e-mails inappropriate for minors to scrub their lists against the state’s registry for an unspecified fee.

Hawaii’s bill says, “The fee shall not exceed .03 cents per contact point and shall be based on the number of contact points checked against the registry for each time the registry is checked.”

This would mean Hawaii could only charge 30 cents per thousand e-mails checked. Michigan’s child no-e-mail law passed with the same ceiling and it turned out to be a typo. The error held Michigan’s law up until it was amended in August.

State legislators have been copying Michigan’s bill. Hawaii’s price ceiling indicates that its legislators may be copying a little too closely.

Supporters say child no-e-mail registries give parents the right to preemptively keep offensive material out of kids’ e-mail boxes. Marketers contend the registries place an unfair burden on law-abiding commercial e-mailers while doing nothing to protect children from pornographic and other offensive e-mail, such as communications from overseas.

Moreover, marketers contend these laws are written so broadly that they could apply to items such as model airplane glue, and pitches for gambling junkets to Las Vegas.

Utah charges $5 per thousand addresses checked. Michigan charges $7 per thousand addresses checked. Iowa legislators are considering a bill that would result in charges of up to $3 per thousand addresses checked, and Georgia is considering a bill that would result in charges of up to $10 per thousand addresses checked.

Since most e-mail addresses do not have geographical information attached to them, it is difficult to tell whether a list contains addresses in a specific state.

As a result, most marketers believe that they would have to scrub their lists against each state’s registry in order to send adult material legally and that it won’t take too many states to pass such laws to price legal, adult content out of e-mail altogether.

Under Connecticut’s bill, first-time offenders would be subject to up to a year in prison and fines of up to $10,000. Second-time offenders would be subject to up to two years in prison and fines of up to $20,000. Third-time offenders would be subject to up to three years in prison and fines of up to $30,000.

Both Connecticut and Hawaii’s bills give the states’ attorneys general, individuals and school administrators the right to sue violators for attorneys’ fees and $5,000 per message up to $250,000.

Supporters contend that giving individuals the right to sue is the only way laws such as these will be enforced. Marketers contend that bills giving individuals the right to sue will invite frivolous litigation.

Connecticut and Hawaii have added their weight to the legislative onslaught against legal, adult content in commercial electronic mail and introduced so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail bills.

However, Hawaii’s bill contains what appears to be a typographical error that would set the fee too low to make its registry viable. The typo mirrors one that delayed a similar law in Michigan.

Four states are known to have introduced legislation that would set up a do-not-e-mail registry for minors this year. Iowa and Georgia are the other two.

Michigan and Utah are already operating such registries. Illinois shelved a child no-e-mail registry bill recently.

Connecticut’s Senate Bill 46 would require the state’s Department of Consumer Protection to set up a system that would allow parents, guardians and school districts to register e-mail addresses and other “contact points” of minors as off limits to content it is illegal for minors to view or use under Connecticut state or federal law.

Hawaii’s Senate Bill 2200 would require the state’s Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to set up a similar registry.

Registrations in both states would remain valid for three years or until the child turns 18.

Connecticut’s bill would require marketers who want to include material in their e-mails inappropriate for minors to scrub their lists against the state’s registry for an unspecified fee.

Hawaii’s bill says “The fee shall not exceed .03 cents per contact point and shall be based on the number of contact points checked against the registry for each time the registry is checked.”

This would mean Hawaii could only charge 30 cents per thousand e-mails checked. Michigan’s child no-e-mail law passed with the same ceiling and it turned out to be a typo. The error held Michigan’s law up until it was amended in August.

State legislators have been copying Michigan’s bill. Hawaii’s price ceiling indicates that its legislators may be copying a little too closely.

Supporters say child no-e-mail registries give parents the right to preemptively keep offensive material out of kids’ e-mail boxes. Marketers contend the registries place an unfair burden on law-abiding commercial e-mailers while doing nothing to protect children from pornographic and other offensive e-mail, such as communications from overseas.

Moreover, marketers contend these laws are written so broadly that they could apply to items such as model airplane glue, and pitches for gambling junkets to Las Vegas.

Utah charges $5 per thousand addresses checked. Michigan charges $7 per thousand addresses checked. Iowa legislators are considering a bill that would result in charges of up to $3 per thousand addresses checked, and Georgia is considering a bill that would result in charges of up to $10 per thousand addresses checked.

Since most e-mail addresses do not have geographical information attached to them, it is difficult to tell whether a list contains addresses in a specific state.

As a result, most marketers believe that they would have to scrub their lists against each state’s registry in order to send adult material legally and that it won’t take too many states to pass such laws to price legal, adult content out of e-mail altogether.

Under Connecticut’s bill, first-time offenders would be subject to up to a year in prison and fines of up to $10,000. Second-time offenders would be subject to up to two years in prison and fines of up to $20,000. Third-time offenders would be subject to up to three years in prison and fines of up to $30,000.

Both Connecticut and Hawaii’s bills give the states’ attorneys general, individuals and school administrators the right to sue violators for attorneys’ fees and $5,000 per message up to $250,000.

Supporters contend that giving individuals the right to sue is the only way laws such as these will be enforced. Marketers contend that bills giving individuals the right to sue will invite frivolous litigation.