This case resulted in a unanimous U. 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. In particular, the act criminalized intentionally using a computer service to send indecent or obscene material to anyone under 18 years of age.
Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 2, Decided June 29, Solicitor General Olson argued the cause for petitioner. Scarborough, and August E. Beeson argued the cause for respondents.
With her on the brief were Christopher A. Shapiro, Stefan Presser, Christopher R.
Harris, and David L. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals was correct to affirm a ruling by the District Court that enforcement of COPA should be enjoined because the statute likely violates the First Amendment.
In enacting COPA, Congress gave consideration to our earlier decisions on this subject, in particular the decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, U. For that reason, "the Judiciary must proceed with caution and The imperative of according respect to the Congress, however, does not permit us to depart from well-established First Amendment principles.
Instead, we must hold the Government to its constitutional burden of proof. Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people.
To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
This is true even when Congress twice has attempted to find a constitutional means to restrict, and punish, the speech in question. This case comes to the Court on certiorari review of an appeal from the decision of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision of the District Court for abuse of discretion.
Under that standard, the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The Government has failed, at this point, to rebut the plaintiffs' contention that there are plausible less restrictive alternatives to the statute.
Substantial  practical considerations, furthermore, argue in favor of upholding the injunction and allowing the case to proceed to trial. For those reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the preliminary injunction, and we remand the case so that it may be returned to the District Court for trial on the issues presented.
The first attempt was the Communications Decency Act ofPub. The Court held the CDA unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available. Material that is "harmful to minors" is defined as: A person acts for "commercial purposes only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communications.American Booksellers Ass'n v.
Hudnut F.2d , U.S. App. ; Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. Search. Table of Contents. Constitutional Law Keyed to Sullivan. Add to Library. Real - Multiple Choice and Essay Exam Prep; Example “Hypotheticals” with Video Review;.
The parties involved were Janet Reno, attorney general () of the United States, which also makes her the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, she is the first woman in this position#, and the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU). Held. No. Judgment of the District Court affirmed.
Under the CDA, neither parents’ consent nor their participation would avoid application of the statute. The CDA fails to provide any definition of “indecent” and omits any requirement that the “patently offensive material” lack serious literary, artistic, political or . 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. 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.
In that case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court held that the government can no more restrict a person’s access to words or images on the Internet than it can snatch a book out of someone’s hands or cover up a nude statue in a museum.