The Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts of the Case
Issue
Held
Reasoning
Concurring opinion
References

Facts of the Case

Congress enacted clauses in the Communication Decency Act of 1996 to ensure that minors (recipients of the information under 18 years of age) are protected from harmful, open content on the Internet. Two provisions illegalized the display of any offensive or patently unpleasant Internet communications. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other concerned bodies legally challenged the constitutionality of these two clauses in the Federal Court. These groups argued that the two clauses went against the First Amendment and therefore infringed on free speech rights. According to the Lower Federal Court ruling, the two clauses violated the First Amendment because they were overbroad, and Fifth Amendment because they were vague (Legal Information Institute, n.d). The Court, therefore, enjoined Government from implementing the regulation. The Government, however, appealed the ruling at the US Supreme Court.

It is observed that sexually-related materials have thrived on the Internet. However, it is not common for a computer user to get these materials from various sites purely by chance. These sites generally run on links connected that a computer user must click to gain access. A minor requires some computer-related knowledge to explore any site on the Internet. Of course, multiple parental restrictions can be found to control a minors access to such sites by limiting access to specific sites with sexual materials or prohibited communications. The most common means of protection has been age verification, which requires visitors to use verified credit cards or use their adult identification details. However, these restrictions have their limitations.

Issue

ACLU wanted to establish the constitutionality of the two provisions. As such, it focused on determining whether the two provisions in the CDA criminalizing the display of obscene and patently offensive online materials violated the First Amendment. That is, the constitutionality of the law restricting access to indecent materials on the Internet was doubted.

Held

The Supreme Court held that the two clauses in the CDA did indeed violate the First Amendment (Axelrod-Contrada, 2007). As such, it was not held. Instead, the Court established that the two provisions were content-based restrictions, but imprecisely written. Through restricting access to materials to minors, the law restricted significant information and speech that adults were legally allowed to receive and consume. Moreover, the law, as it was stated, generally outlawed persons from posting obscene materials on their computers. It also failed to account for the relevance and actual communication value of some materials.

The CDA consequently put a heavy burden on adult speech, which was unacceptable. Instead, the Government could have considered lesser restrictive means to attain the Acts legitimate objective of protecting minors. The Government failed to prove the relevance of the provision. Hence, the vagueness of the provision undermined the possibility that the regulation was specifically enacted for the realization of the Congressional objective of protecting children from possibly harmful online content and communications.

Reasoning

By enacting the two provisions in the CDA, the Government understood its critical role of protecting persons below the age of 18 years from potentially dangerous online materials. However, the Government couldnt protect minors without infringing on adults right to free speech and by including several sexual-related speeches not considered obscene. That is, by restricting minors to gain access to possibly dangerous materials and communication, the Government ultimately blocked information considered as free speech. The right to free speech is protected, and adults have the right to receive and share such information.

The vague regulations, without a precise definition of key terms used, such as patently offensive and indecent expressions, did not express how the Government would protect minors from online sexually explicit online materials. Moreover, it was not clear whether obscene and indecent information was becoming illegal or that one expression could substitute another. It was previously observed that vague rules often led to complications by raising issues associated with the First Amendment specifically on free speech rights (see Ginsberg v. New York). Such regulations simply raised doubts about the constitutionality of the CDA (Rappaport, 1998).

The Court also noted that the Government could not provide a reliable means to verify the identity of user age, particularly when such contents were delivered through e-mail.

Concurring opinion

Judges (Justice OConnor and Chief Justice Rehnquist) involved in the case upheld the decision of the Lower Court. However, they noted that adults required strictly adult zones that would be impossible for minors to access by relying on modern technologies. Further, other alternatives proposed to have strictly kids Web sites, which could have been constitutional and practical. It was noted that the District Court arrived at its ruling after obtaining facts about the case. As such, the Court evaluated the issues related to the Internet, sexually explicit contents, and the issue of age verification. The CDA was too vague and not well defined for enforcement.

References

Axelrod-Contrada, J. (2007). Reno vs. ACLU: Internet Censorship Supreme Court Milestones. New York: Marshall Convendish Benchmark.

Legal Information Institute. (n.d). Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (96-511) 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Web.

Rappaport, K. L. (1998). In the Wake of Reno v. ACLU: The Continued Struggle in Western Constitutional Democracies with Internet Censorship and Freedom of Speech Online. American University International Law Review, 13(3), 765-814.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Case

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)