Reno V ACLU 1997

Title and Year

Reno V ACLU

1997

 Court

 Rehnquist

 Majority Opinion

Paul Stevens

' Facts/Brief Background

In 1997, ACLU joined by several other interest groups and organizations filed a lawsuit claiming that “indecent transmission” and “patently offensive display” provisions of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 were very broad and it violated the 1st amendment rights. The act made it illegal for the transmission of the offensive materials through internet. Attorney General Reno appealed the case and the case was accepted into the Supreme Court for review.

 Issue

Did 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?  Ruling & Legal Doctrine

The court ruled in favor of ACLU. Justice Stevens in his majority opinion stated that the government has gone too far for restricting the obscene materials from minors. While trying to restrict the access of obscene materials to the minors, CDA is restricting the right to freedom of expression of the adults who have constitutional privilege to voluntary access to those materials. CDA has not clearly defined the “indecent” communication. Because of that lack of explanation, this act is restricting the right to freedom of expression of the adults. Moreover, the government was not able to demonstrate that the act would impact only the minors and not the adults and also the government has failed to demonstrate that the transmission of offensive material through Internet doesn’t have any social value. The majority also demonstrated that only obscenity is not protected by the freedom of speech and expression. The court refused to hear about the due process clause and 5th amendment rights regarding this case.

 Significance

This decision created a setback for the government in the case of obscenity. As more and more people started using Internet, it became essential for the adult industries to move some of their merchandise online. The government’s intent to regulate and protect the minors online was hindered by this decision.