DIGESTS FOR MEDIA LAW UA&P LAW 2018

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

CASE SUMMARY:

The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act under the
First Amendment. The Act criminalized the intentional transmission of “obscene or indecent” messages as well
as the transmission of information which depicts or describes “sexual or excretory activities or organs” in a
manner deemed “offensive” by community standards. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s
decision deeming the provisions unconstitutional because they amounted to a content-based blanket restriction
of free speech. The Act failed to define “indecent” communications, and unlike in broadcast regulations, there
was no limitation on the applicability of the restrictions during certain times or to individuals. The Act also failed
to demonstrate that the transmission of “offensive” material was devoid of social value.

FACTS:

 Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency
Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional
transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts
or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community
standards.
 After being enjoined by a District Court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one
concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno
appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.

ISSUE + RATIO:

Whether certain provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violate the First and Fifth Amendments by
being overly broad and vague in their definitions of the types of internet communications which they criminalized.
YES

 The Court held that the Act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-
based blanket restriction of free speech. The Act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit
its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact adults), provide
supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively
demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value.

 As to the text of the provisions, the Court considered that they were vaguely worded and failed to
adequately define or limit “indecent” or “patently offensive” material. The provisions would potentially
criminalise large amounts of non-pornographic material with serious educational or other value, and the
“community standards” criterion as applied to the Internet meant that any website available to a nation-
wide audience would be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by it. This
would provoke uncertainty and raise questions whether the Act criminalized serious discussion about
issues such as birth control, homosexuality, or the consequences of prison rape.

 The Court held that, “[i]t is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting
children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of
speech addressed to adults. As we have explained, the Government may not “reduc[e] the adult
population…to…only what is fit for children.”” [p. 875] The Court therefore agreed with the district court’s
conclusion that “the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech, and that the
defenses do not constitute the sort of ‘narrow tailoring’ that will save an otherwise patently invalid
unconstitutional provision.” [p. 882]

 Finally, the government had said that the Act was needed to foster the growth of the Internet, arguing
that the unregulated availability of “indecent” and “patently offensive” material would drive people away.
DIGESTS FOR MEDIA LAW UA&P LAW 2018
The Court held that this contention was clearly wrong, as illustrated by the dramatic ongoing growth of
the internet, and held that, “governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere
with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression
in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.” [p. 885]

 The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual
expressions, protecting only the former, the Act could be saved from facial overbreadth challenges if it
dropped the words "or indecent" from its text. The Court refused to address any Fifth Amendment issues.