Reno v. american civil liberties union
Case name: Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
Year decided: 1997
Result: 9-0, in favor of American Civil Liberties Union
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment because it was overly vague and broad in its definitions of criminal internet communications. The Act failed to prove that the transmission of obscene content lacks social value and did not clearly define "indecent" transmissions, instead providing a blanket definition that could potentially restrict all indecent and obscene communications, infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Court also stated that the First Amendment makes a clear distinction between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions and only protects "indecent" sexual expressions. Since the act included the word "indecent" in its text, it is not consistent with the First Amendment.
Quote from majority opinion: "As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume 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."
Six-word summary: Internet censorship of sexual communications unconstitutional.
Year decided: 1997
Result: 9-0, in favor of American Civil Liberties Union
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment because it was overly vague and broad in its definitions of criminal internet communications. The Act failed to prove that the transmission of obscene content lacks social value and did not clearly define "indecent" transmissions, instead providing a blanket definition that could potentially restrict all indecent and obscene communications, infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Court also stated that the First Amendment makes a clear distinction between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions and only protects "indecent" sexual expressions. Since the act included the word "indecent" in its text, it is not consistent with the First Amendment.
Quote from majority opinion: "As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume 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."
Six-word summary: Internet censorship of sexual communications unconstitutional.