reno v. aclu
Year: 1997
Result: 9-0, favor ACLU
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Reno v. ACLU is one of the first Court cases to deal with the internet. It was ruled that the 1996 Communications Decency Act violates the 1st Amendment right to free speech. The Act's blanket restrictions, lack of specifications, and failure to prove "offensive" material's lack of social value all speak to the vague and broad definition of what types of internet communications are criminalized. These general regulations, along with the restriction of "indecent" speech (which is protected by the 1st Amendment), translate to a substantial suppression of free speech and were therefore ruled unconstitutional.
Quote from majority opinion: "At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges 'the freedom of speech' protected by the First Amendment."
6-word summary: Broad Internet censorship, violates free speech
Result: 9-0, favor ACLU
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Reno v. ACLU is one of the first Court cases to deal with the internet. It was ruled that the 1996 Communications Decency Act violates the 1st Amendment right to free speech. The Act's blanket restrictions, lack of specifications, and failure to prove "offensive" material's lack of social value all speak to the vague and broad definition of what types of internet communications are criminalized. These general regulations, along with the restriction of "indecent" speech (which is protected by the 1st Amendment), translate to a substantial suppression of free speech and were therefore ruled unconstitutional.
Quote from majority opinion: "At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from 'indecent' and 'patently offensive' communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges 'the freedom of speech' protected by the First Amendment."
6-word summary: Broad Internet censorship, violates free speech