American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14419, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1897, 217 F.3d 162 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal law regulating commercial speech on the World Wide Web that uses 'contemporary community standards' to define material 'harmful to minors' is likely unconstitutional because the internet's borderless nature forces every web publisher to adhere to the standards of the most restrictive community, thereby imposing an undue burden on constitutionally protected speech for adults.
Facts:
- After the Supreme Court struck down its first attempt to regulate online content for minors (the Communications Decency Act), Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in October 1998.
- COPA imposed criminal and civil penalties on those who knowingly made any communication for commercial purposes on the World Wide Web that was available to any minor and included material 'harmful to minors'.
- The definition of 'harmful to minors' in COPA was based on a three-part test, which included determining whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards,' would find the material, taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to the prurient interest.
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs were individuals and entities who published a wide range of content on the Web for commercial purposes, some of which was sexual in nature and intended for adults.
- The World Wide Web is a global, geographically borderless medium of communication.
- At the time of the case, technology did not permit web publishers to reliably identify the geographic location of visitors to their websites or to restrict access to their content based on a user's location.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on constitutional grounds.
- The District Court granted a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of COPA.
- Following evidentiary hearings, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the government from enforcing the statute.
- The government, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Child Online Protection Act's use of 'contemporary community standards' to define material 'harmful to minors' on the World Wide Web impose an unconstitutional burden on protected speech under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Garth, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Child Online Protection Act's use of 'contemporary community standards' likely imposes an unconstitutional burden on protected speech. Because the World Wide Web is a global medium and web publishers cannot technologically restrict access based on a user's geographic location, COPA effectively requires all publishers to conform their content to the standards of the most restrictive community in the United States to avoid liability. This creates an unconstitutional chilling effect on speech that is protected for adults, as it reduces the content available to all adults to what is deemed acceptable for children in the most conservative locale. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving mail or telephone services, where providers could control the geographic distribution of their content. The court also rejected the government's suggestion to interpret 'community standards' as a non-geographic 'adult' standard, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California, which established community standards as inherently local and geographically diverse. Therefore, COPA is not narrowly tailored and is likely unconstitutionally overbroad.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that laws regulating the internet must account for its unique, borderless architecture. By finding that traditional, geographically-based legal standards like the 'contemporary community standards' test are unworkable in the context of the Web, the court created a significant hurdle for legislative efforts to regulate online content. The ruling shifted the focus towards technology, suggesting that such regulations might only become constitutional if and when effective geographic filtering technology becomes available. This case significantly influenced the subsequent legal battles over online content regulation, emphasizing that a one-size-fits-all, community-based standard impermissibly burdens First Amendment rights in a global medium.
