Supreme Court Case: ACLU v. Reno (117 S.Ct. 2329)
In the 1997 case, ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court set the precedent for the regulation of the Internet. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) became law on February 8, 1996. That same day, the ACLU and nineteen other plaintiffs filed suit against the Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of two of the CDA's provisions. The challenged sections were S 223(a)(1)(b), which prohibits the creation or solicitation, and initiation of indecent or obscene transmissions, knowing that the recipient is under eighteen years of age (ACLU v. Reno, at 2341). Section 223 (d)(1) prohibits the knowing, sending, or displaying of messages in a manner that is available to persons under eighteen years of age, which depicts or describes sexual or excretory activity or organs in a way that is patently offensive in the context of contemporary community standards (ACLU v. Reno, at 2344). Unlike S 223 (a)(1)(b), violation of S223(d)(1), would occur even if the speech was not actually directed at youths, so long as the defendant knew that the communication would be available to minors.Violation of the CDA was punishable by criminal fines and up to two years imprisonment (ACLU v. Reno, at 2345). Two affirmative defenses limited the applicati
The district court deciding ACLU v. Reno conducted extensive evidentiary hearings to gain the greatest possible understanding of the Internet before deciding whether to uphold or strike down the regulations applying to the unique new medium. The court placed great emphasis on the "findings of fact," and acknowledged the necessity of "examining the underlying technology of the communication to find the proper fit between First Amendment values and competing interests (Jacques, at 1975-76)." The district court acknowledged the government's compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well being of minors by shielding them from indecent and patently offensive material. However, under a strict scrutiny analysis, the court found the CDA unconstitutional because of its failure to adopt the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling government interest. As a result, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the CDA and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also noted that the vagueness of the statute was particularly critical for two reasons. First, the CDA because of its content-based regulation of speech, runs the risk of having a chilling effect on free speech. Second, since the CDA is a statute that provides criminal sanctions, it could cause speakers to remain silent rather than run the risk of communicating even arguably unlawful words, ideas, or images. Consi
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, ACLU Reno, Internet CDA, Act CDA, supreme court, aclu reno, Violation CDA, district court, free speech, court held, patently offensive, series affirmative steps, , usca 223 a1bii, 223 a1bii, 47 usca 223, usca 223, amendment protection, court applied, amendment protection court, requires series affirmative,
Approximate Word count = 989
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
