An interesting op-ed by Jim Clarke in today’s New York Times talks about today’s Supreme Court argument concerning state restrictions on out-of-state wine shipments. One of the arguments advanced in favor of such restrictions is that they make it harder for children to obtain alcohol, and that it is difficult, if not impossible, for an Internet wine retailer to ensure that a wine purchaser is of legal age. Clarke relies on the seminal case of Reno v. ACLU to argue that it should not matter. Like Internet wine retailers, “it is practically impossible for providers of Internet pornography to verify the age of their customers.” But despite these concerns, the Reno Court struck down a law which prohibited indecent speech over the Internet because it was not the “least restrictive alternative” for keeping kids away from pornography. Clarke argues that like the indecency law, a law banning all out-of-state wine shipments similarly is not the least restrictive alternative for deterring alcohol consumption by minors. That, he says, would be a law requiring recipients of alcohol deliveries to be of legal drinking age.

I’m not sure the analogy works - the law struck down in the Reno case affected a core constitutional right - free speech - which is not implicated here. But if the Court buys it or otherwise strikes down these restrictions, it will be a victory for e-commerce and for wine snobs like me who can’t buy their favorite California wine without flying 3000 miles.

—–