The federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 was invalidated because it violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Why was it considered a violation?

The Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause because it was not content neutral.

Explanation:

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was a federal law that made it a crime to knowingly transmit or post online material that was obscene, indecent, or patently offensive, with the intent of protecting minors. However, in Reno v. ACLU (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the CDA.

The Court found these provisions to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause for several reasons:

The CDA was not content neutral; it specifically targeted indecent material, including profanity, vulgarity, and por-nography, which is a content-based restriction on speech.
It was too ambiguous, as the term "indecent" was not clearly defined by the Act, creating a chilling effect on lawful speech due to uncertainty surrounding what constituted "indecent" material.
The Act failed to employ the least restrictive means to protect minors from such material, as there were possible alternatives like web site rating systems or the use of filtering software.

In addition, the Court emphasized that the level of public discourse should not be restricted to only what is suitable for children, acknowledging the internet's unique and pervasive presence in modern communication.

This landmark case is a significant interpretation of freedom of expression on the internet and demonstrates the balance between government regulation and First Amendment protections.