reno v. aclu
Year: 1997
Result: 9:0, favor ACLU
Related Constitutional issue/amendment: 1st amendment (freedom of speech)
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Liberties
Significance/Precedent: Served as the first big case concerning the regulation of the Internet; Overturned the Communications Decency Act because its wording was too vague; Ultimately stated that the internet is not subject to the stricter regulations of the FCC like broadcasting is, but rather is subject to the broader protections of the 1st amendment like print media is.
Quote from majority opinion: "We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve."
6-word summary: can't regulate internet obscenity towards minors
Result: 9:0, favor ACLU
Related Constitutional issue/amendment: 1st amendment (freedom of speech)
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Liberties
Significance/Precedent: Served as the first big case concerning the regulation of the Internet; Overturned the Communications Decency Act because its wording was too vague; Ultimately stated that the internet is not subject to the stricter regulations of the FCC like broadcasting is, but rather is subject to the broader protections of the 1st amendment like print media is.
Quote from majority opinion: "We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve."
6-word summary: can't regulate internet obscenity towards minors