EOL 469: Legal Basis of Educational Practice

David M. Stone, University Laboratory High School, Urbana, IL USA

Brief of JANET RENO, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Argued March 19, 1997, Decided June 26, 1997

Procedural Background

US District Court held 223 (a) and 223(d) of the CDA unconstitutional, and stopped enforcement.

Issue

Do the Communications Decency Act provisions which prohibit knowing transmission to minors of "indecent" or certain "patently offensive" communications abridge free speech protected by First Amendment?

Rule

Communications Decency Act provisions 47 USCS 223(a), the knowing transmission, by means of a telecommunications device, of "obscene or indecent" communications to any recipient under 18 years of age and 223(d) the knowing use of an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age (47 USCS 223(d)(1)(A)), or to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age (47 USCS 223(d)(1)(B)), communications that, in context, depict or describe, in terms "patently offensive" as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs. .

Holding

Yes, the Communications Decency Act provisions which prohibit knowing transmission to minors of "indecent" or certain "patently offensive" communications abridge free speech protected by First Amendment. Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist joined.

Court Reasoning

1. The statute "sweeps more broadly than necessary and thereby chills the expression of adults."
2. The terms "patently offensive" and "indecent" are "inherently vague."
3. The Act would abridge significant protected speech, particularly by noncommercial speakers, while "perversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected."
4. Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render
   it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment. Given the vague contours of the coverage of the statute, it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection.
5. The breadth of the CDA's coverage is wholly unprecedented. Unlike the regulations upheld in Ginsberg and Pacifica, the scope of the CDA is not limited to commercial speech or commercial entities. Its open-ended prohibitions embrace all nonprofit entities and individuals posting indecent messages or displaying them on their own computers in the presence of minors. The general, undefined terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" cover large amounts of nonpornographic material with serious educational or other value.

Consequences

As a result of the overturning of this statute we Americans keep the rights and freedoms that our country was founded upon, though at the same time we continue to be concerned about the materials that these freedoms make available to all, including our children. Within school settings we control access in a number of different ways including filters and Acceptable Use Policies, neither of which provides a terribly effective shield.

Personal Note

The main value of examining this statute's history in the courts is that this case makes clear the fact that statutes which are overly vague or overly broad become unenforceable when challenged. In terms of the development of our own policy in this class, it is essential that we be certain to be both clear and specific in our presentation of policy if it is to be truly useful..

Developed 9/24/99. Last modified 9/24/99.