States try to deal with sex lures on the Internet.

When it comes to the Internet, the concept of free speech vs. regulation flames the arena for a fiercely fought battle between conservatives who want to protect children from pedophiles and pornography and the advocates of free expression.

So far, the highest court in the land has come down on the side of First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court struck down the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) last summer.

However, since last July at least four states introduced laws like CDA, joining 13 others with such statutes already on the books. Two federal laws also have been introduced in committee. Federal judges in Georgia, New York and Virginia struck down two state versions of the law. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has won, to date, every lawsuit it has filed over Internet censorship.

But a New York law enacted in late 1996, touted by both advocates of Internet content restrictions and free speech proponents, may be the answer.

New York Penal Law 235.22 makes it a crime to disseminate indecent materials online to minors for the specific purpose of inducing them to engage in sexual acts. The law has received kudos from both the National Center for Children and Families and the ACLU. The two organizations are frequent legal opponents in Internet court cases.

The ACLU accepts what has become known as the "luring" law because it is narrowly aimed at preventing criminal solicitation and is not a broad attack on free expression. The National Center for Children and Families likes it because it sends a clear signal that the Internet is not to be used as a tool to abuse children.

In the first case brought to court under the law, a 56-year-old man was indicted on charges of obscenity, child pornography and violating the "luring" law when he arranged to meet an alleged 13-year-old girl to whom he had been writing over the Internet. The "girl" was an undercover officer. When the man showed up for the supposed tryst, he was arrested.

New York Supreme Court Justice Alan Marrus found the law constitutional on appeal. He said that an anti-decency law, such as the Communications Decency Act, standing alone could violate the First Amendment, but an indecency ruling paired with a luring provision was valid. "It is this luring element that, in this court's view, saves the statute from constitutional infirmity," he wrote.