What did the Supreme Court rule about efforts to ban indecent and obscene material on the Web through the Communications Decency Act of 1996?

Question

05-01-2024
Law

College

We appreciate your visit to What did the Supreme Court rule about efforts to ban indecent and obscene material on the Web through the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This page offers clear insights and highlights the essential aspects of the topic. Our goal is to provide a helpful and engaging learning experience. Explore the content and find the answers you need!

What did the Supreme Court rule about efforts to ban indecent and obscene material on the Web through the Communications Decency Act of 1996?

Answer :

Other Questions

On his first day of school, Kareem found the high temperature in

When rescuing an unconscious child or small adult from a window, how

The linear system is not in echelon form but can be put

A pot of boiling water on a hot stove demonstrates heat transfer

What is the temperature change when 1 kg of sand and 1

Evaluate \(-8^2 \times (-4)^3\). Options: A) -128 B) Negative 128 C) 0

Name: _______ **Standard and Expanded Form** **Write in expanded form:** 1) 689.435

**How a Ruined Shirt Launched a Successful Venture** A simple trip to

Lin and Jada each walk at a steady rate from school to

What is the product of the following expression? [tex](-2x - 9y^2)(-4x -

HelenAbigail HelenAbigail · Answer 1 · 2024-01-03T03:00:59-05:00

Final answer:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU, due to its content-based restriction on speech, vagueness in what defined 'indecent' material, and because it wasn't the least restrictive means to protect minors from inappropriate online content.

Explanation:

In the landmark case of Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. The Court found the CDA unconstitutional and set an important precedent concerning freedom of expression on the internet. The reasons for this ruling were threefold:

The CDA was not content neutral and was considered a content-based blanket restriction on speech, targeting specific types of indecent material.
It was too vague in defining what constituted "indecent" material, leading to a chilling effect where constitutionally protected speech was suppressed due to fear of penalty.
The Act was not the "least drastic means" to prevent minors from accessing inappropriate material, disregarding alternative solutions like a web site rating system or the use of filtering software.

These rulings not only underscore the difficulty in regulating obscene and indecent content online but also highlight the Supreme Court's role in protecting First Amendment rights in the digital age.