Reno v. ACLU Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union case was the first test involving the regulation of indecent or obscene materials distributed electronically over the Internet. Specifically, this case tested the constitutionality of an attempt by the federal government to prohibit the distribution of obscene materials unless the Web site provider could verify the user’s age. This case resulted in a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down two anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). The resulting rule of law indicated that it was not constitutional to infringe on adult speech freedoms if there were less restrictive methods of achieving the goal of protecting children from indecent or obscene materials.

The CDA was Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and was designed to protect children from unsuitable Internet and electronic material. In particular, the act criminalized intentionally using a computer service to send indecent or obscene material to anyone under 18 years of age. The legislation also criminalized the use of any interactive computer service to display sexual or excretory activities or organs or anything offensive as measured by contemporary community standards.

The case resulted from a direct request to the Supreme Court from then Attorney General Janet Reno. She requested the review as a result of the provision enjoined by the verdict of the district court. Several plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), had filed suit to challenge provisions within the act. The Supreme Court heard the case on Wednesday, March 19, 1997, and submitted its decision on Thursday, June 26, 1997. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 175-page majority opinion that was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a separate concurrence that was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who voted with the majority. The majority opinion included several pages of findings of fact about the nature and history of Internet technology and identified the utility of protecting such a source of communication and expression. This resulted in the court subjecting the CDA legislation to a strict-scrutiny analysis. This is the most restrictive level of review and applies in cases of infringement of constitutionally protected rights. There are three tests that must be utilized, including the presence of a compelling government interest, a requirement that the provision includes a narrowly tailored policy, and the policy must represent the least restrictive means of achieving the goal. Without findings in all three areas, a policy will fail the strict-scrutiny test.

The justices held that the “indecent transmission” and “patently offensive display” provisions abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The court noted that the CDA differed from other laws in the breadth of its restrictions and the vagueness of the descriptions of the prohibited materials and behaviors. It did not include definitions of “indecent” or “patently offensive” and omitted any requirement that “patently offensive” material lack socially redeeming value. There were neither temporal limitations nor objective evaluation criteria. The legislation did not allow parents to consent to the use of restricted materials by their children and was purely punitive in its response to the concerns. The justices recognized that the medium under regulation had previously been given full First Amendment protection.

This heightened expectation of protection warranted the most stringent review of the CDA provisions. The court had recognized numerous factors in the government’s ability to regulate media in previous cases, for example, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, and Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC. However, the court found none of these factors at play with regard to materials conveyed via the Internet. The justices found that the statute was vague and raised concerns about the chilling effect on free speech. The CDA had failed to adequately and precisely justify such an intrusion on the constitutional protections and was therefore struck down.

The court sided with the district court in finding that there was currently available user-based software that offered a reasonably effective method by which parents could prevent their children from accessing material that the parents believe is inappropriate. These alternative methods of controlling access to the obscene material reduced the need to infringe on the First Amendment protections of adults. The court also rejected the government’s argument that these protections were necessary to foster growth of the Internet and found that the policy had not been adequately narrowed to ensure that it did not infringe on the constitutional protections.

In 2000, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which more narrowly tailored the law. The legislation attempted to prevent the transmission of materials that were identified as harmful to minors and included a three pronged test to assess the nature of the materials.

This legislation was also challenged and found constitutionally problematic in 2004 in the landmark case Ashcroft v. ACLU. Finally, in 2003, Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which was ultimately upheld when challenged by communications providers. This law currently provides the standards for minors in accessing indecent and obscene materials online.

Bibliography:

Axelrod-Contrada, Joan. Reno vs. ACLU: Internet Censorship. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Convendish,
Ehrlich, Paul. “Cyberlaw: Regulating Conduct on the Internet.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, v.17 (2002).
Fraleigh, Douglas. “Reno v. ACLU.” In Free Speech on Trial, Richard A. Parker, ed. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2003.
Merlis, Steven E. “Preserving Internet Expression While Protecting Our Children: Solutions Following Ashcroft v. ACLU.” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, v.4 (2005).
Rappaport, Kim L. “In the Wake of Reno v. ACLU: The Continued Struggle in Western Constitutional Democracies With Internet Censorship and Freedom of Speech Online.” American University International Law Review, v.13 (1997).
“RENO v. ACLU.” Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511. (Accessed March 2013).

This example Reno v. ACLU Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.