Wednesday, March 12, 2008

test




Reno v. ACLU
96-511
521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Reno
ACLU


Full Opinion: First Amendment, Obscenity, Federal: 9 - 0




Wednesday, March 19, 1997
Thursday, June 26, 1997
First Amendment, Obscenity, Federal


fifth amendment, first amendment, internet, juveniles, obscenity

Rehnquist: Freedom of Speech
Rehnquist: Freedom of the Press
Rehnquist on iTunes U

Oral Argument
Opinion Announcement
Written Opinion
Bruce J. Ennis, Jr.
Seth P. Waxman


Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. After being enjoined by a District Court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.



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?



Yes. The Court held that the Act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The Act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact on adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the Act could be saved from facial overbreadth challenges if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text. The Court refused to address any Fifth Amendment issues.



http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511/


























Voted with the majority, joined O'Connor's special concurrenceVoted with the majority, authored an opinionVoted with the majority, authored a special concurrenceVoted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinionVoted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinionVoted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinionVoted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinionVoted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinionVoted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
RehnquistStevensO'ConnorScaliaKennedySouterThomasGinsburgBreyer