Facts
- Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 223, to restrict minors’ access to sexual material on the Internet.
- Section 223(a)(1)(B)(ii) imposed criminal liability for knowingly transmitting “obscene or indecent” messages to a person under 18.
- Section 223(d) imposed criminal liability for knowingly sending or displaying to a person under 18 material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms “patently offensive” by contemporary community standards.
- The CDA included affirmative defenses for entities that took good-faith, effective measures to restrict minors’ access, including age-verification mechanisms (e.g., credit card or adult identification number).
- A coalition of civil liberties organizations and Internet speakers brought facial challenges under a special statutory review procedure.
- A three-judge district court made extensive findings about the Internet and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the CDA’s “indecent” provisions and all of § 223(d), while leaving intact enforcement as to obscenity and child pornography.
- The Government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the CDA’s “indecent transmission” and “patently offensive display” provisions violate the First Amendment by imposing content-based criminal restrictions on Internet speech.
- Whether the challenged provisions are unconstitutional because their breadth and imprecision suppress substantial amounts of protected speech, including speech adults have a right to receive.
- Whether the statute’s unclear terms contribute to unconstitutional overbreadth (and whether a separate Fifth Amendment vagueness ruling is necessary).
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction against enforcement of the challenged CDA provisions.
- The Court held that the CDA’s “indecent transmission” and “patently offensive display” provisions abridge freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
- The Court treated the CDA as a content-based blanket restriction reaching the entire Internet, not as a limited time, place, and manner regulation.
- The Court accepted protecting minors as a compelling interest but found the CDA not narrowly tailored and unduly burdensome on adult access to protected speech.
- The Court affirmed on First Amendment grounds without reaching a separate Fifth Amendment vagueness holding, while noting that vagueness concerns reinforced the overbreadth analysis.
Legal Principles
- Content-based criminal restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny; even compelling interests cannot justify suppressing substantial protected speech absent narrow tailoring.
- The First Amendment protects “indecent” (non-obscene) speech; government may regulate obscenity and child pornography, but broader restrictions must satisfy heightened constitutional limits.
- Regulations aimed at shielding minors may not effectively restrict adults to speech suitable for children; burdens on adult access are constitutionally significant.
- Internet speech receives full First Amendment protection; rationales supporting greater regulation of broadcast media (e.g., scarcity and invasiveness) do not automatically apply online.
- Statutory imprecision and undefined terms can exacerbate chilling effects and contribute to unconstitutional overbreadth, particularly where criminal penalties are imposed.
Conclusion
The Court held that the CDA’s indecency and “patently offensive” provisions were facially unconstitutional because they imposed broad, content-based criminal prohibitions on Internet speech that were not narrowly tailored to protect minors and that substantially burdened adults’ access to protected expression.