9. Reno v.

American Civil Liberties Union

521 US 844 | 26 June 1997 | Justice Stevens.
Aggy | Topic: Online Speech

TL;DR
ACLU is attacking the constitutionality of the 2 provisions of the CDA because they contend that it is facially
unconstitutional. The government relied on precedent, the defenses for exemption on liability provided in
the statute, and the principle of the severability clause, in arguing for the constitutionality of the statute. The
District Court ruled the statute unconstitutional. SC affirmed it holding that it recognizes the government’s
interest in protecting minors from harmful materials available on the Internet but the statute is overbroad
for unnecessarily suppressing adult speech. The terms “indecent” and “patently offensive” is not defined
clearly in the statute which will provoke uncertainty among Internet users. (its vagueness will suppress
others kahit na legitimate naman yung speech nila since it might fall under the prohibition) The court also
noted the unique nature of the Internet which makes it almost impossible to verify the ages of its users. (as
found din by the District Court) Although there may be means of verification like credit card verification, and
adult passwords, it will unduly burden non-commercial speakers (since it will be quite expensive). Also,
there is no assurance that the user of the password or credit card is in fact over 18. SC also noted that
there are other possible alternatives, without suppressing protected speech, which shows that the statute
is not narrowly tailored. CDA, then, must be held unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad and for
placing an undue burden on protected speech.

Doctrine:
Although the government has a compelling interest in the protection of the youth from harmful materials, it
is not a sufficient justification for an unnecessary broad suppression of protected adult speech especially
considering the special characteristics of the Internet which provides no effective way of age verification of
users accessing materials available on it.

Facts:
(SC noted the use of emails, mail exploder, newsgroups, and chat rooms as the most relevant in this
case since it involves transmission of messages)

1. The constitutionality of two provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which seek to
protect minors from harmful materials on the Internet, are challenged.
a. Section 223 (a) [indecent transmission] – prohibition on the knowing transmission of
obscene or indecent messages to any recipient under 18 years of age.
b. Section 223 (d) [patently offensive display] – prohibition on the knowing sending or
displaying of patently offensive messages in a manner that is available to a person under 18
years of age.
2. The American Civil Liberties Union/ACLU (plaintiff) contends that the 2 provisions are facially
unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
a. The 3-judge District Courts wrote separate opinions, but ruled unanimously that the statute
is unconstitutional because:
i. It sweeps more broadly than necessary and thereby chills the expression of adults,
ii. The terms “patently offensive” and “indecent” were “inherently vague”.
iii. The unique nature of the Internet aggravated the vagueness of the statute
iv. It abridges the significant protected speech, particularly of noncommercial speakers,
while perversely commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected.

Issue/Holding:
1. W/N the statute is unconstitutional? – YES.
 (The case enumerated all the arguments of the government, and the Supreme Court rebutted them so
I’ll just put them in the table. I also included which heading para in case you guys are confused you can
refer to that. But the main gist of what SC held is this):

SC held that:
• They need not dwell on W/N violates the Fifth Amendment as its ambiguities clearly render it
problematic under the First Amendment.
• The statute is vague for not providing any definition for the terms “indecent” and “patently
offensive” which will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how the two standards
relate to each other and just what they mean.
• There will be an obvious chilling effect on free speech because of the vagueness of the
content-bases regulation, coupled with the increased deterrent effect of it being a criminal
statute.
• It is recognized that the government has interest in protecting minors from harmful
materials on the Internet but it does not justify the unnecessary broad suppression on
free speech of adults.

Defense of Government Supreme Court

The precedents where the court upheld the The New York statute upheld in the Ginsberg case
regulation of the government involving provided in its definition of material that is harmful to
speech. (HEADING IV) minors with the requirement that it be “utterly without
redeeming social importance for minors”. But in the
case at bar, CDA fails to provide any definition of the
term “indecent” and importantly omits any
requirement that the patently offensive material
covered by Section 223(d) lack serious literary artistic,
political or scientific value.

The special justification given to broadcast media in

Pacifica is not available to this content-based blanket
restriction on speech.
Government wants to apply the special The special justifications for regulating broadcast
justifications given to the regulation of media are not available to online speech mainly
broadcasting media. (HEADING V) because of the broadcasting’s invasive nature and the
huge possibility of encountering obscene content by
accident, while on the Internet, it is seldom that a
user will encounter obscene content by accident
as they usually have warnings, and it takes a positive
action before accessing such materials.

Also, communications on the Internet is very diverse

that it cannot be considered as “scarce expressive
commodity”, thus, the qualifying scrutiny over
broadcast media regulations cannot apply. (from what
I understand, masyadong maraming content sa
Internet from audio to videos to pictures to texts,
unlike with broadcast media na limited lang to for
example TV – video/photos)
Government argues that one of the standards There is no need to look at the statute’s possible
under the Miller test (where SC set the test for violation of the Fifth Amendment because its
obscenity) is included in the CDA. (HEADING ambiguities are problematic under the First
VI) Amendment.

The vagueness of the CDA is a matter of concern

because it is a criminal statute and is a content-based
regulation of speech. It threatens violators with
penalties which may cause speakers to remain silent
rather than communicate even arguably unlawful
words, ideas, and images. It presents a threat of
censoring speech that falls outside the ambit of the
statute.

Miller test – though one of the standards under the

Miller test is included in CDA, it is not a justification.
Just because a definition including 3 limitations is not
vague, it does not follow that one of those limitations,
standing by itself is not vague.
Government argues that prohibition on the Due to the lack of effective means of age verification,
knowing transmission of indecent materials CDA suppresses a large amount of speech that adults
will not interfere with adult-to-adult have a constitutional right to receive and to address
communication. (HEADING VII) to one another. SC noted that sexual expression
which is indecent but not obscene is protected. Given
(One of their contentions also include that the size of potential audience for most messages, in
there are means like credit card verification the absence of a viable age verification process, the
and adult passwords for verifying age, but as sender must be charged with knowing that one or
held by District Court, these are not available more minors will likely view it. Such knowledge would
to noncommercial speakers) surely burden communication among adults. (Adult
communications will be unduly burdened because
usually mediums like chatrooms often have 100+
members, and there’s huge possibility that at least
one or more minors are included. Mabuburden yung
adult na magsesend nung message.

Eto yung for me pinakafocus ng case, walang

effective way of verifying yung age online so pano mo
malalaman effectively kung yung kausap mo is indeed
a minor or not. So essentially matatakot na si adult to
communicate kasi baka mapenalize siya)

Government tried to argue for a fall-back In considering facial challenges, SC may impose a
position where they contend that should the limiting construction on a statute only if it is “readily
CDA be declared insufficiently tailored, the susceptible” to such a construction. The CDA has an
court should save its constitutionality by open-ended character which provides no guidance for
honoring the severability clause. They wanted limiting its coverage. To limit without such guidance in
SC din to just remove the “or indecent” clause the statute would involve a serious invasion of the
since it is undisputed that “obscene” materials legislative domain.
demand regulation – HEADING X (basically
gusto nila ilimit ng SC yung construction ng
statute in a way na magiging constitutional pa
rin siya but limited na in application in
 accordance to boundaries that will be set by
the court)

Ruling:
1. Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
2. The Communications Decency Act abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment.

Relevant Provisions:

First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.