Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 844 (1997)

"The content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought.
It is the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed
It is entitled to the highest protection from governmental intrusion."
--U.S. District Court 1996

Washington, D.C., 1996. Congress passes the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which makes it a crime to send or display "obscene or indecent" messages to minors on the internet. As the President signs the bill, the American Civil Liberties Union challenges it. A District Court enters a preliminary injunction against enforcement of this provision of the CDA. In 1997, the Supreme Court hears its first case about cyberspace.

Attorney General Janet Reno argues we must protect minors from harmful material that is quote: "indecent" and "patently offensive." "Vague, undefined terms" says a unanimous Court. "Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three judge District Court that the statute abridges 'the freedom of speech' protected by the First Amendment."

In 1957, the Supreme Court found a ban on the sale to adults of books deemed harmful to children unconstitutional because it "reduce[s] the adult population... to reading only what is fit for children (Butler v. Michigan)." Twenty years later, Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens writes: "We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another."

Justice Stevens says of the internet: "Any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer." He concludes: "The general,undefined terms 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' cover large amounts of nonpornographic material with serious educational or other value... The vagueness of such a content based regulation, coupled with its increased deterrent effect as a criminal statute, raise special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech."

For more...

Electronic Freedom Foundation: COPA ("CDA II") Legal Challenge Page

Highlights in the Development of Cyberspace Law

AMENDMENT 1 Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Assembly

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [^].

Your Constitutional Rights. A WEB & RADIO project of:
ACLU Montana | HearingVoices.