Lexplug logoLexplug

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

United States Supreme Court
521 U.S. 844 (1997)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A government regulation of speech on the Internet is unconstitutional if it is overly broad and suppresses a substantial amount of speech that adults have a right to receive and send, particularly when less restrictive alternatives for achieving the government's purpose exist. Speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to that afforded to print media.


Facts:

  • The Internet is a unique, global medium of communication used by tens of millions of people for a vast range of expression.
  • Individuals can publish information on the Internet at a low cost, leading to a diversity of content that is 'as diverse as human thought.'
  • Sexually explicit material exists on the Internet, but users must take a series of affirmative steps to access it; they seldom encounter such content by accident, and it is often preceded by warnings.
  • Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to prohibit the knowing transmission of 'indecent' or 'patently offensive' communications to any recipient under 18 years of age.
  • At the time of the law's passage, there was no feasible or economically viable method for most content providers, particularly non-commercial ones, to verify the age of Internet users.
  • Requiring credit card or adult ID verification for access to content would effectively bar access for many adults and would be prohibitively expensive for non-commercial speakers.
  • Parental control software was becoming widely available, offering a less restrictive, user-based method for parents to control their children's access to online material.

Procedural Posture:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Attorney General Janet Reno, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
  • A second group of plaintiffs filed a similar suit, and the cases were consolidated.
  • Pursuant to a provision in the CDA, a special three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the case.
  • The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the CDA was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
  • The government (Reno) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, as authorized by the CDA's special judicial review provision.

Locked

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 Communications Decency Act of 1996, which criminalizes the 'knowing' transmission of 'indecent' or 'patently offensive' material to persons under 18, violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

Yes, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 violates the First Amendment. The Act is a content-based regulation of speech that is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Court reasoned that the CDA's prohibitions on 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' speech suppress a large amount of expression that is constitutionally protected for adults. Because current technology does not permit speakers to reliably verify the age of their audience, the CDA forces speakers to reduce the content of their speech to a level suitable for children, which is an unacceptable burden on adult communication. The Court distinguished the Internet from broadcast media, which receives less First Amendment protection, noting the Internet is not 'invasive' and users must actively seek out content. The statute was not narrowly tailored, especially since less restrictive alternatives like user-based filtering software were available to parents. The vagueness of the terms 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' would chill protected speech due to the threat of criminal prosecution.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor

Yes and no; the 'display' provision is unconstitutional, but the 'transmission' provisions could be constitutional in certain applications. This opinion views the CDA as an attempt to create 'adult zones' on the Internet. The provision criminalizing the 'display' of patently offensive material in a manner available to minors is unconstitutional because current technology makes it impossible to create a reliable adult-only zone, thus unacceptably restricting adult speech. However, the provisions prohibiting sending indecent material to a 'specific person' known to be a minor are constitutional when applied to communications between one adult and one or more minors (e.g., a direct email). In those narrow circumstances, the law does not restrict the adult's speech with other adults. The opinion would have invalidated the Act only to the extent it was overbroad, rather than striking it down entirely.



Analysis:

This landmark decision established that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, rejecting the government's argument that it should be regulated like broadcast media. By striking down the CDA, the Court set a strong precedent against broad, content-based censorship of the Internet. The ruling solidified the principle that the government cannot 'reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children,' ensuring that the Internet could develop as a diverse forum for adult expression. This case has been foundational in shaping subsequent Internet law and has been cited repeatedly to strike down other legislative attempts at broad online content regulation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"