## Facts

- Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, to criminalize commercial web publishing of material “harmful to minors,” defined using “contemporary community standards” and an obscenity-like test (prurient interest, patent offensiveness, and lack of serious value for minors).
- COPA applied to material posted on the World Wide Web, which is accessible nationwide and globally.
- COPA contemplated age-verification measures (e.g., credit cards, adult access codes, or PINs) as a compliance option.
- A coalition of civil liberties groups and online publishers that disseminated sexually explicit or sensitive but constitutionally protected material challenged COPA as chilling adult access and forcing speakers to conform to the most restrictive community standards.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of COPA; the Attorney General appealed the interlocutory injunction order.

## Issues

1. Whether, for purposes of preliminary injunctive relief, COPA’s use of “contemporary community standards” to define “harmful to minors” on the Web likely violates the First Amendment by forcing nationwide speakers to conform to the most restrictive communities’ standards.
2. Whether the plaintiffs showed the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, including likely success on the merits and irreparable harm from chilled speech.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction against enforcement of COPA.
- The court held the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge.
- The court found irreparable harm because even temporary loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury.
- The court concluded the government’s interest in protecting minors could not justify means that unnecessarily suppress protected speech available to adults.

## Legal Principles

- In a borderless communications medium where speakers cannot feasibly limit access by geographic location, imposing criminal liability keyed to “contemporary community standards” can burden protected speech by effectively requiring compliance with the most restrictive community.
- A regulation aimed at shielding minors may not, in operation, suppress a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech for adults.
- For preliminary injunctions in First Amendment cases, likely success on the merits and irreparable injury from chilled expression can justify enjoining enforcement pending final adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of COPA because the statute’s reliance on “contemporary community standards,” applied to globally accessible web content without practical geographic filtering, likely imposed an unconstitutional burden on protected speech and threatened irreparable First Amendment harm.


Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000)