RENO VS ACLU : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court held in Reno vs American Civil Liberties Union (1997) that Communication Decency Act, 1996 providing for protection of minors from indecent and patently offensive communication on Internet was unconstitutional.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) provided for protection of minors from “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications on Internet. These prohibitions were qualified by two affirmative defenses. One covered those who took good faith, reasonable, effective and appropriate actions to restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications. The other covered those who restricted access to covered material by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such as verified credit card or an adult identification number.
Constitutionality of the statute was challenged before the District Court, which declared the same unconstitutional. The case finally reached to the Supreme Court.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court noted that sexually explicit material on Internet includes text, pictures and chat and extends from most titillating to the hardest-core. Once a provider posts its content on the Internet, it cannot prevent that content from entering any community. There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of user who is accessing material through e-mail, mail exploders, news groups or chatrooms.
The Supreme Court observed that CDA lacked the precision that the First Amendment required when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a Constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. The burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least be as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve. Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Where obscenity is not involved, the fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppression.
Government has right in protecting children form harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults.
The breath of coverage of CDA is unprecedented. It covers non-profit organizations, individuals in addition to commercial entities. The general undefined term “indecent” and “patently offensive” cover large amount of material with educational and other contents.
The Court observed that CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech and the defenses do not constitute he sort of “narrow tailoring” that will save an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that unregulated availability of “indecent” and “patently offensive” material on the Internet is driving countless citizens away from Internet. The Supreme Court observed that growth of Internet is phenomenal and continue to be so. Government regulation of content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it.
The judgment of District Court was affirmed by Supreme Court.
________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.