Reno v.

American Civil Liberties Union

Citation. 521 U.S. 844,117 S. Ct. 2329,138 L. Ed. 2d 874,1997 U.S.
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.