Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
Headline: Federal ban on sending 'indecent' or 'patently offensive' Internet communications struck down, protecting adult online speech and limiting Congress’s power to criminally restrict broad online content aimed at minors.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower court and held that the 1996 Communications Decency Act provisions banning transmission or display of "indecent" or "patently offensive" material to minors unconstitutionally restrict adult speech.
- Protects adults' ability to send and receive non‑obscene online speech.
- Leaves criminal laws against obscenity and child pornography intact.
- Highlights need for reliable age‑verification and parental filtering tools.
Summary
Background
The dispute was between the federal government, which defended parts of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and a coalition of civil‑liberties groups, libraries, and Internet companies who challenged two criminal provisions. Those provisions made it a crime to knowingly transmit "indecent" material to anyone known to be under 18 and to display "patently offensive" material in a way accessible to minors. The suit produced detailed district‑court findings about how the Internet works and how hard age verification is.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether those broad criminal bans were a permissible way to protect children. It held they were not. The majority said the law was a content‑based criminal restriction that was too vague and too broad, so it would chill adults' speech. The Court relied on the district court's factual findings that age verification for most Internet tools was ineffective or too costly, distinguished earlier broadcast and sales cases, and concluded Congress had not narrowly tailored the law to protect children without suppressing lawful adult communication.
Real world impact
As a practical matter, the decision prevents criminal enforcement of the challenged provisions as written, so adults retain the right to send and receive sexually explicit but non‑obscene material online. The Court left in place criminal laws against obscenity and child pornography, and severed the word "or indecent" from one section so that obscenity prosecutions remain possible. The ruling leaves room for future laws or technologies that can target minors without broadly silencing adults.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice O'Connor (joined by the Chief Justice) agreed parts could be upheld as applied: she would have sustained provisions limited to communications knowingly sent to identifiable minors and relied on the "adult zones" zoning approach.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?