Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentInternet speechOverbreadthContent-based regulationCommunications Decency ActCDAindecent

Facts

Congress enacted two CDA provisions aimed at protecting minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive" Internet communications. The Internet is a vast, decentralized medium in which users generally must take affirmative steps to access content, and accidental exposure to sexually explicit material is relatively unlikely. The District Court found there was no effective way to verify age for e-mail, mail exploders, newsgroups, or chat rooms, and that available verification methods for Web sites were economically or practically unavailable for many speakers, especially noncommercial ones. The Act imposed criminal penalties, while its broad terms covered a substantial amount of nonobscene speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and transmit.

Issue

Whether the CDA's prohibitions on transmitting or displaying "indecent" or "patently offensive" Internet communications to minors violate the First Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether these content-based criminal restrictions were overbroad in light of the Internet's characteristics and the availability of less restrictive means to protect minors.

Rule

When a statute regulates the content of speech on the Internet, the First Amendment requires precision and does not permit the Government to suppress a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and address to one another in order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective. A reviewing court may impose a narrowing construction on a facially challenged statute only if the statute is readily susceptible to such a construction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Online Youth Decency Act, making it a felony to post on any publicly accessible website material that, under local community standards, describes sexual health in a patently offensive way if minors can access the site. A nonprofit clinic in Seattle posts contraception guides and safer-sex advice for adults and teenagers, and parents can also install filtering software on home devices.

If the clinic brings a facial First Amendment challenge, which argument most strongly supports invalidating the statute?

Explanation. A content-based criminal restriction on Internet speech is subject to full First Amendment scrutiny. The government may not broadly reduce adult online discourse to what is fit for children when less restrictive measures, such as user-based parental controls, would be at least as effective. The majority rejected treating the Internet like broadcasting and emphasized the unacceptable burden on protected adult speech.