Scribd
Upload
222 views2 pages

Supreme Court Strikes Down CDA

The Supreme Court held two provisions of the Communications Decency Act that criminalized displaying obscene material to minors online as unconstitutional. The provisions enacted a blanket restriction on speech by prohibiting both protected and unprotected speech. As a content-based restriction, the provisions could not be properly analyzed as a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation and lacked the precision required by the First Amendment when regulating speech. By denying minors access to potentially harmful speech, the statute improperly suppressed speech that adults have a constitutional right to access.

Uploaded by

KPP
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
222 views2 pages

Supreme Court Strikes Down CDA

The Supreme Court held two provisions of the Communications Decency Act that criminalized displaying obscene material to minors online as unconstitutional. The provisions enacted a blanket restriction on speech by prohibiting both protected and unprotected speech. As a content-based restriction, the provisions could not be properly analyzed as a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation and lacked the precision required by the First Amendment when regulating speech. By denying minors access to potentially harmful speech, the statute improperly suppressed speech that adults have a constitutional right to access.

Uploaded by

KPP
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Reno v.

ACLU, June 26, 1997, D-96-511


Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (96-511)
Argued: March 19, 1997 Decided: June 26, 1997
Brief Fact Summary. Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of
1996 (CDA) that criminalized providing obscene materials to minors by on
the internet were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United
States
(Supreme
Court).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where a content-based blanket restriction on
speech is overly broad by prohibiting protected speech as well as
unprotected speech, such restriction is unconstitutional.
Facts. At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to
protect minors from indecent and patently offensive communications on
the Internet. The District Court made extensive findings of fact about the
Internet and the CDA. It held that the statute abridges the freedom of
speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
(Constitution).
Issue. Whether the two CDA statutory provisions at issue are constitutional?
Held. No. Judgment of the District Court affirmed. Under the CDA, neither
parents consent nor their participation would avoid application of the
statute. The CDA fails to provide any definition of indecent and omits any
requirement that the patently offensive material lack serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value. Further, the CDAs broad categorical
prohibitions are not limited to particular times and are not dependent on any
evaluation by an agency familiar with the unique characteristics of the
Internet. CDA applies to the entire universe of the cyberspace. Thus, the CDA
is a content-based blanket restriction on speech, as such, cannot be properly
analyzed as a form of time, place and manner restriction. The CDA lacks the
precision that the First Amendment of the Constitution requires when a
statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to
potentially harmful speech, the statute suppresses a large amount of speech
that
adults
have
a
constitutional right to receive. The CDA places an unacceptable burden on
protected speech, thus, the statute is invalid as unconstitutional.
Concurrence. The constitutionality of the CDA as a zoning law hinges on the
extent to which it substantially interferes with the First Amendment rights of
adults. Because the rights of adults are infringed only by the display
provision and by the indecency transmission provision, the judge would
invalidate the CDA only to that extent.
Discussion. This case brings the First Amendment of the Constitution into
the Internet age while prohibiting speech regulations that are overbroad
despite their seemingly benevolent goals.

You might also like