It used to be that real estate regulation was an insider's game, something that existed in large measure to protect brokers and salespeople from competition. To understand just how friendly the system was, consider these gems from the 1967 edition of the real estate laws in the District of Columbia:

• Individuals could work as real estate "salesmen" without any training because the law provided for a six months' "grace period" before it was necessary to pass the basic real estate exam. In effect, you could be in real estate without a license, at least for enough time to close a sale.

• Brokers, said the regulations, "should not publicly criticize a competitor."

• Brokers "should respect the schedule of fees established by custom in his community."

• "Multiple listings are not permitted in the District of Columbia."

By 1992, when I first established an online real estate center, real estate laws in many if not most states said that except for newspapers a broker's license was required to publish a real estate ad. Did this mean that a real estate ad could not be posted on the Internet without having a brokerage license? If you needed a broker's license to accept a real estate ad then how could you have an online classified service? Would you need to be licensed in all states?

Letters were sent to regulators in those states which had the toughest advertising restrictions asking if an online classified service could be permitted because the Internet represented a new technology, something not envisioned when state laws were written.

Each state we contacted accepted our position. Why? Well, it could have been that the "new technology" argument was compelling, but looming in the background were other issues:

First, real estate licensure laws simply do not apply to publications or other communication media. Real estate brokerage laws concern the representation of others for a fee in a real estate transaction. There is no act of representation publishing an ad. No prices are being set, no terms are being negotiated, and no fees result from performance.

Second, as a nation we do not license newspapers, magazines, publishers, news services, reporters, editors or columnists. Requiring a real estate license to publish real estate ads conflicts with the First Amendment and all accepted precedent.

Third, allowing some media to carry real estate ads and not others inherently limits owner rights. Home values are effectively reduced because communication is restricted. Less information about a property means fewer people may be interested and a smaller pool of prospective buyers means that owners may not obtain the prices which would otherwise be available had communication not been limited.

Fourth, read literally state laws allow print publications to carry real estate ads -- but not Internet sites operated by local newspapers. This makes no sense and potentially limits the ability of newspapers to maximize ad revenues.

Fifth, why should real estate regulators create an advertising monopoly for newspapers?

Given this background it's no surprise that the Eastern District Court of California and the New Hampshire Real Estate Commission have now knocked down state rules limiting real estate ads to newspapers. Such rules are absurd, relics of a bygone era that are unjustified today.

What's really happened is that we have simply ended archaic, unenforced and unenforceable laws, laws with as much relevance today as rules still on the books from 300 years ago that make "blasphemy" a crime.

People have, and have always had, the right to sell their own homes. Every broker knows that some portion of all home sales will not involve their services. Figures from the National Association of Realtors show that 14 percent of existing home sales were made by self-sellers in 2004. Since 1991, NAR studies also show that the FSBO percentage has ranged from 13 to 19 percent -- with a general trend toward lower numbers in recent years despite Internet growth.

Will we now see more self-sellers because of the advertising decisions? Nope. The new rulings from California and New Hampshire will not create a surge of self-sellers because in practice online ads have been common for a decade.

What will change is this: Real estate regulators are forced to function within rules established by state legislatures -- rules which are sometimes outdated and inappropriate, rules which regulators want to replace with modern standards. Regulators can now look at ad publishing requirements and say publicly and with precedence on their side that such rules are indefensible.

The result of the twin state decisions is not a "victory" for self-sellers, buyer brokers, small brokers or single agency. It's not a "loss" for real estate brokers, big brokers, listing brokers or real estate regulators. Instead, it's a victory for common sense and constitutional values, things we all share.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here.