Reno V ACLU

7/18/2015
Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion::521U.S.844(1997)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter
Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume521

Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion Case
Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion
521U.S.844(1997)
AnnotatethisCase
Opinion
PDF
Annotation
Syllabus | Case
OCTOBERTERM,1996
Syllabus
RENO,ATTORNEYGENERALOFTHEUNITEDSTATES,ETAL.v.AMERICANCIVIL
LIBERTIESUNIONETAL.
APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEEASTERN
DISTRICTOFPENNSYLVANIA
No.96511.ArguedMarch19,1997DecidedJune26,1997
TwoprovisionsoftheCommunicationsDecencyActof1996(CDAorAct)seektoprotect
minorsfromharmfulmaterialontheInternet,aninternationalnetworkofinterconnected
computersthatenablesmillionsofpeopletocommunicatewithoneanotherin"cyberspace"
andtoaccessvastamountsofinformationfromaroundtheworld.Title47U.S.C.223(a)
(I)(B)(ii)(1994ed.,Supp.II)criminalizesthe"knowing"transmissionof"obsceneor
indecent"messagestoanyrecipientunder18yearsofage.Section223(d)prohibitsthe
"knowin[g]"sendingordisplayingtoapersonunder18ofanymessage"that,incontext,
depictsordescribes,intermspatentlyoffensiveasmeasuredbycontemporarycommunity
standards,sexualorexcretoryactivitiesororgans."Mfirmativedefensesareprovidedfor
thosewhotake"goodfaith,...effective...actions"torestrictaccessbyminorstothe
prohibitedcommunications,223(e)(5)(A),andthosewhorestrictsuchaccessbyrequiring
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/case.html
1/61
7/18/2015
certaindesignatedformsofageproof,suchasaverifiedcreditcardoranadultidentification
number,223(e)(5)(B).Anumberofplaintiffsfiledsuitchallengingtheconstitutionalityof
223(a)(I)and223(d).Mtermakingextensivefindingsoffact,athreejudgeDistrictCourt
convenedpursuanttotheActenteredapreliminaryinjunctionagainstenforcementofboth
challengedprovisions.Thecourt'sjudgmentenjoinstheGovernmentfromenforcing
223(a)(I)(B)'sprohibitionsinsofarastheyrelateto"indecent"communications,butexpressly
preservestheGovernment'srighttoinvestigateandprosecutetheobscenityorchild
pornographyactivitiesprohibitedtherein.Theinjunctionagainstenforcementof223(d)is
unqualifiedbecausethatsectioncontainsnoseparatereferencetoobscenityorchild
pornography.TheGovernmentappealedtothisCourtundertheAct'sspecialreview
provisions,arguingthattheDistrictCourterredinholdingthattheCDAviolatedboththe
FirstAmendmentbecauseitisoverbroadandtheFifthAmendmentbecauseitisvague.
Held:TheCDA's"indecenttransmission"and"patentlyoffensivedisplay"provisionsabridge
"thefreedomofspeech"protectedbytheFirstAmendment.Pp.864885.
2/61
7/18/2015
845
(a)AlthoughtheCDA'svaguenessisrelevanttotheFirstAmendmentoverbreadthinquiry,
thejudgmentshouldbeaffirmedwithoutreachingtheFifthAmendmentissue.P.864.
(b)AcloselookattheprecedentsreliedonbytheGovernmentGinsbergv.NewYork,390
U.S.629FCCv.PacificaFoundation,438U.S.726andRentonv.PlaytimeTheatres,
Inc.,475U.S.41raises,ratherthanrelieves,doubtsabouttheCDA'sconstitutionality.The
CDAdiffersfromthevariouslawsandordersupheldinthosecasesinmanyways,including
thatitdoesnotallowparentstoconsenttotheirchildren'suseofrestrictedmaterialsisnot
limitedtocommercialtransactionsfailstoprovideanydefinitionof"indecent"andomitsany
requirementthat"patentlyoffensive"materiallacksociallyredeemingvalueneitherlimitsits
broadcategoricalprohibitionstoparticulartimesnorbasesthemonanevaluationbyan
agencyfamiliarwiththemedium'suniquecharacteristicsispunitiveappliestoamedium
that,unlikeradio,receivesfullFirstAmendmentprotectionandcannotbeproperlyanalyzed
asaformoftime,place,andmannerregulationbecauseitisacontentbasedblanket
restrictiononspeech.Theseprecedents,then,donotrequiretheCourttoupholdtheCDA
andarefullyconsistentwiththeapplicationofthemoststringentreviewofitsprovisions.Pp.
864868.
(c)ThespecialfactorsrecognizedinsomeoftheCourt'scasesasjustifyingregulationof
thebroadcastmediathehistoryofextensiveGovernmentregulationofbroadcasting,see,e.
g.,RedLionBroadcastingCo.v.FCC,395U.S.367,399400thescarcityofavailable
frequenciesatitsinception,see,e.g.,TurnerBroadcastingSystem,Inc.v.FCC,512U.S.
622,637638andits"invasive"nature,seeSableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,492
U.S.115,128arenotpresentincyberspace.Thus,thesecasesprovidenobasisfor
qualifyingthelevelofFirstAmendmentscrutinythatshouldbeappliedtotheInternet.
Pp.868870.
(d)RegardlessofwhethertheCDAissovaguethatitviolatestheFifthAmendment,the
manyambiguitiesconcerningthescopeofitscoveragerenderitproblematicforFirst
Amendmentpurposes.Forinstance,itsuseoftheundefinedterms"indecent"and"patently
offensive"willprovokeuncertaintyamongspeakersabouthowthetwostandardsrelateto
eachotherandjustwhattheymean.Thevaguenessofsuchacontentbasedregulation,
see,e.g.,Gentilev.StateBarofNev.,501U.S.1030,coupledwithitsincreaseddeterrent
effectasacriminalstatute,see,e.g.,Dombrowskiv.Pfister,380U.S.479,raisespecial
FirstAmendmentconcernsbecauseofitsobviouschillingeffectonfreespeech.Contraryto
theGovernment'sargument,theCDAisnotsavedfromvaguenessbythefactthatits
"patentlyoffensive"stand
3/61
7/18/2015
4/61
7/18/2015
846
ardrepeatsthesecondpartofthethreeprongobscenitytestsetforthinMillerv.California,
413U.S.15,24.ThesecondMillerprongreducestheinherentvaguenessofitsown
"patentlyoffensive"termbyrequiringthattheproscribedmaterialbe"specificallydefinedby
theapplicablestatelaw."Inaddition,theMillerdefinitionappliesonlyto"sexualconduct,"
whereastheCDAprohibitionextendsalsoto"excretoryactivities"and"organs"ofbotha
sexualandexcretorynature.EachofMiller'sothertwoprongsalsocriticallylimitsthe
uncertainsweepoftheobscenitydefinition.Justbecauseadefinitionincludingthree
limitationsisnotvague,itdoesnotfollowthatoneofthoselimitations,standingalone,isnot
vague.TheCDA'svaguenessunderminesthelikelihoodthatithasbeencarefullytailoredto
thecongressionalgoalofprotectingminorsfrompotentiallyharmfulmaterials.Pp.870874.
(e)TheCDAlackstheprecisionthattheFirstAmendmentrequireswhenastatuteregulates
thecontentofspeech.AlthoughtheGovernmenthasaninterestinprotectingchildrenfrom
potentiallyharmfulmaterials,see,e.g.,Ginsberg,390U.S.,at639,theCDApursuesthat
interestbysuppressingalargeamountofspeechthatadultshaveaconstitutionalrightto
sendandreceive,see,e.g.,Sable,492U.S.,at126.Itsbreadthiswhollyunprecedented.
TheCDA'sburdenonadultspeechisunacceptableiflessrestrictivealternativeswouldbe
atleastaseffectiveinachievingtheAct'slegitimatepurposes.See,e.g.,id.,at126.The
Governmenthasnotprovedotherwise.Ontheotherhand,theDistrictCourtfoundthat
currentlyavailableuserbasedsoftwaresuggeststhatareasonablyeffectivemethodby
whichparentscanpreventtheirchildrenfromaccessingmaterialwhichtheparentsbelieve
isinappropriatewillsoonbewidelyavailable.Moreover,theargumentsinthisCourtreferred
topossiblealternativessuchasrequiringthatindecentmaterialbe"tagged"tofacilitate
parentalcontrol,makingexceptionsformessageswithartisticoreducationalvalue,
providingsometoleranceforparentalchoice,andregulatingsomeportionsoftheInternet
differentlyfromothers.Particularlyinthelightoftheabsenceofanydetailedcongressional
findings,orevenhearingsaddressingtheCDA'sspecialproblems,theCourtispersuaded
thattheCDAisnotnarrowlytailored.Pp.874879.
(f)TheGovernment'sthreeadditionalargumentsforsustainingtheCDA'saffirmative
prohibitionsarerejected.First,thecontentionthattheActisconstitutionalbecauseitleaves
openample"alternativechannels"ofcommunicationisunpersuasivebecausetheCDA
regulatesspeechonthebasisofitscontent,sothata"time,place,andmanner"analysisis
inapplicable.See,e.g.,ConsolidatedEdisonCo.ofN.Y.v.
5/61
7/18/2015
847
PublicServoComm'nofN.Y.,447U.S.530,536.Second,theassertionthattheCDA's
"knowledge"and"specificperson"requirementssignificantlyrestrictitspermissible
applicationtocommunicationstopersonsthesenderknowstobeunder18isuntenable,
giventhatmostInternetforumsareopentoallcomersandthateventhestrongestreading
ofthe"specificperson"requirementwouldconferbroadpowersofcensorship,intheformof
a"heckler'sveto,"uponanyopponentofindecentspeech.Finally,thereisnotextual
supportforthesubmissionthatmaterialhavingscientific,educational,orotherredeeming
socialvaluewillnecessarilyfalloutsidetheCDA'sprohibitions.Pp.879881.
(g)The223(e)(5)defensesdonotconstitutethesortof"narrowtailoring"thatwouldsave
theCDA.TheGovernment'sargumentthattransmittersmaytakeprotective"goodfaith
actio[n]"by"tagging"theirindecentcommunicationsinawaythatwouldindicatetheir
contents,thuspermittingrecipientstoblocktheirreceptionwithappropriatesoftware,is
illusory,giventherequirementthatsuchactionbe"effective":Theproposedscreening
softwaredoesnotcurrentlyexist,but,evenifitdid,therewouldbenowayofknowing
whetherapotentialrecipientwouldactuallyblocktheencodedmaterial.TheGovernment
alsofailedtoprovethat223(b)(5)'sverificationdefensewouldsignificantlyreducethe
CDA'sheavyburdenonadultspeech.Althoughsuchverificationisactuallybeingusedby
somecommercialprovidersofsexuallyexplicitmaterial,theDistrictCourt'sfindingsindicate
thatitisnoteconomicallyfeasibleformostnoncommercialspeakers.Pp.881882.
(h)TheGovernment'sargumentthatthisCourtshouldpreservetheCDA'sconstitutionality
byhonoringitsseverabilityclause,608,andbyconstruingnonseverabletermsnarrowly,
isacceptableinonlyonerespect.Becauseobscenespeechmaybebannedtotally,see
Miller,413U.S.,at18,and223(a)'srestrictionof"obscene"materialenjoysatextual
manifestationseparatefromthatfor"indecent"material,theCourtcansevertheterm"or
indecent"fromthestatute,leavingtherestof223(a)standing.Pp.882885.
(i)TheGovernment'sargumentthatits"significant"interestinfosteringtheInternet'sgrowth
providesanindependentbasisforupholdingtheCDA'sconstitutionalityissingularly
unpersuasive.Thedramaticexpansionofthisnewforumcontradictsthefactualbasis
underlyingthiscontention:thattheunregulatedavailabilityof"indecent"and"patently
offensive"materialisdrivingpeopleawayfromtheInternet.P.885.
929F.Supp.824,affirmed.
6/61
7/18/2015
848
STEVENS,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichSCALIA,KENNEDY,SOUTER,
THOMAS,GINSBURG,andBREYER,JJ.,joined.O'CONNOR,J.,filedanopinion
concurringinthejudgmentinpartanddissentinginpart,inwhichREHNQUIST,C.J.,
joined,post,p.886.
DeputySolicitorGeneralWaxmanarguedthecauseforappellants.Onthebriefswere
ActingSolicitorGeneralDellinger,AssistantAttorneyGeneralHunger,DeputySolicitor
GeneralKneedler,IrvingL.Gornstein,Barbara
BruceJ.Ennis,Jr.,arguedthecauseforappellees.Withhimonthebriefforappellees
AmericanLibraryAssociationetal.wereAnnM.Kappler,PaulM.Smith,DonaldB.Verrilli,
Jr.,JohnB.Morris,Jr.,JillLesser,RichardM.Schmidt,Jr.,BruceRich,JamesWheaton,
JerryBerman,ElliotM.Mincberg,LawrenceS.Ottinger,AndrewJ.Schwartzman,RonaldL.
Plesser,JamesJ.Halpert,MichaelTraynor,RobertP.Taylor,ReneMilam,MarcJacobson,
BruceWSanford,andHenryS.Hoberman.ChristopherA.Hansen,StevenR.Shapiro,
MarjorieHeins,CatherineWeiss,StefanPresser,DavidL.Sobel,MarcRotenberg,and
RogerEvansfiledabriefforappelleesAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionFoundationetal.*
*BriefsofamicicuriaeurgingreversalwerefiledforMemberofCongressDanCoatsetal.
byBruceA.TaylorandCathleenA.CleaverforEnoughisEnoughetal.byRonaldD.
MainesfortheFamilyLifeProjectoftheAmericanCenterforLawandJusticebyJayAlan
Sekulow,JamesM.Henderson,Sr.,ColbyM.May,KeithA.Fournier,JohnG.Stepanovich,
andThomasP.MonaghanforMoralityinMedia,Inc.,byPaulJ.McGeadyandRobertW
PetersandforJamesJ.ClancybyMr.Clancy,prose,andCarolA.Clancy.
BriefsofamicicuriaeurgingaffirmancewerefiledfortheAmericanAssociationofUniversity
Professorsetal.byJamesD.Crawford,CarlA.Solano,TheresaE.Loscalzo,Jennifer
DuFaultJames,andJosephT.LukensforApollomediaCorporationetal.byWilliam
BennettTurnerfortheAssociationofNationalAdvertisers,Inc.,byP.CameronDeVore,
JohnJ.Walsh,StevenG.Brody,MaryElizabethTaylor,GilbertH.Weil,andSol
SchildhausefortheChamberofCommerceoftheUnitedStatesbyCliffordM.Sloan,Bert
WRein,RobertJ.Butler,StephenA.Bokat,and
7/61
7/18/2015
849
JUSTICESTEVENSdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.
Atissueistheconstitutionalityoftwostatutoryprovisionsenactedtoprotectminorsfrom
"indecent"and"patentlyoffensive"communicationsontheInternet.Notwithstandingthe
legitimacyandimportanceofthecongressionalgoalofprotectingchildrenfromharmful
materials,weagreewiththethreejudgeDistrictCourtthatthestatuteabridges"the
freedomofspeech"protectedbytheFirstAmendment.1
I
TheDistrictCourtmadeextensivefindingsoffact,mostofwhichwerebasedonadetailed
stipulationpreparedbytheparties.See929F.Supp.824,830849(EDPa.1996).2The
findingsdescribethecharacterandthedimensionsoftheInternet,theavailabilityof
sexuallyexplicitmaterialinthatmedium,andtheproblemsconfrontingageverificationfor
recipientsofInternetcommunications.Becausethosefindingsprovidetheunderpinningsfor
thelegalissues,webeginwithasummaryoftheundisputedfacts.
TheInternet
TheInternetisaninternationalnetworkofinterconnectedcomputers.Itistheoutgrowthof
whatbeganin1969asa
RobinS.ConradforFeministsforFreeExpressionbyBarbaraMcDowellfortheNational
AssociationofBroadcastersetal.byFloydAbrams,JackN.Goodman,andSusannaM.
LowyforPlayboyEnterprises,Inc.,byRobertCornRevereandBurtonJosephforthe
ReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePressetal.byJaneE.KirtleyandS.Mark
GoodmanforSiteSpecific,Inc.,etal.byJamieB.WStecherandforVolunteerLawyers
fortheArtsetal.byDanielH.Weiner.
RaphaelWinickfiledabriefofamicuscuriaefortheSpeechCommunicationAssociation.
1"Congressshallmakenolaw...abridgingthefreedomofspeech."
2TheCourtmade410findings,including356paragraphsoftheparties'stipulationand54
findingsbasedonevidencereceivedinopencourt.See929F.Supp.,at830,n.9,842,n.
15.
8/61
7/18/2015
850
militaryprogramcalled"ARPANET,"3whichwasdesignedtoenablecomputersoperated
bythemilitary,defensecontractors,anduniversitiesconductingdefenserelatedresearchto
communicatewithoneanotherbyredundantchannelsevenifsomeportionsofthenetwork
weredamagedinawar.WhiletheARPANETnolongerexists,itprovidedanexamplefor
thedevelopmentofanumberofciviliannetworksthat,eventuallylinkingwitheachother,
nowenabletensofmillionsofpeopletocommunicatewithoneanotherandtoaccessvast
amountsofinformationfromaroundtheworld.TheInternetis"auniqueandwhollynew
mediumofworldwidehumancommunication."4
TheInternethasexperienced"extraordinarygrowth."5Thenumberof"host"computers
thosethatstoreinformationandrelaycommunicationsincreasedfromabout300in1981to
approximately9,400,000bythetimeofthetrialin1996.Roughly60%ofthesehostsare
locatedintheUnitedStates.About40millionpeopleusedtheInternetatthetimeoftrial,a
numberthatisexpectedtomushroomto200millionby1999.
IndividualscanobtainaccesstotheInternetfrommanydifferentsources,generallyhosts
themselvesorentitieswithahostaffiliation.Mostcollegesanduniversitiesprovideaccess
fortheirstudentsandfacultymanycorporationsprovidetheiremployeeswithaccess
throughanofficenetworkmanycommunitiesandlocallibrariesprovidefreeaccessandan
increasingnumberofstorefront"computercoffeeshops"provideaccessforasmallhourly
fee.Severalmajornational"onlineservices"suchasAmericaOnline,CompuServe,the
MicrosoftNetwork,andProdigyofferaccesstotheirownextensiveproprietarynetworksas
wellasalinktothemuchlargerresourcesoftheInternet.Thesecom
3AnacronymforthenetworkdevelopedbytheAdvancedResearchProjectAgency.
4Id.,at844(finding81).5Id.,at831(finding3).
9/61
7/18/2015
851
mercialonlineserviceshadalmost12millionindividualsubscribersatthetimeoftrial.
AnyonewithaccesstotheInternetmaytakeadvantageofawidevarietyofcommunication
andinformationretrievalmethods.Thesemethodsareconstantlyevolvinganddifficultto
categorizeprecisely.But,aspresentlyconstituted,thosemostrelevanttothiscaseare
electronicmail(email),automaticmailinglistservices("mailexploders,"sometimesreferred
toas"listservs"),"newsgroups,""chatrooms,"andthe"WorldWideWeb."Allofthese
methodscanbeusedtotransmittextmostcantransmitsound,pictures,andmovingvideo
images.Takentogether,thesetoolsconstituteauniquemediumknowntoitsusersas
"cyberspace"locatedinnoparticulargeographicallocationbutavailabletoanyone,
anywhereintheworld,withaccesstotheInternet.
Emailenablesanindividualtosendanelectronicmessagegenerallyakintoanoteor
lettertoanotherindividualortoagroupofaddressees.Themessageisgenerallystored
electronically,sometimeswaitingfortherecipienttocheckher"mailbox"andsometimes
makingitsreceiptknownthroughsometypeofprompt.Amailexploderisasortofemail
group.Subscriberscansendmessagestoacommonemailaddress,whichthenforwards
themessagetothegroup'sothersubscribers.Newsgroupsalsoservegroupsofregular
participants,butthesepostingsmaybereadbyothersaswell.Therearethousandsof
suchgroups,eachservingtofosteranexchangeofinformationoropiniononaparticular
topicrunningthegamutfrom,say,themusicofWagnertoBalkanpoliticstoAIDS
preventiontotheChicagoBulls.About100,000newmessagesarepostedeveryday.In
mostnewsgroups,postingsareautomaticallypurgedatregularintervals.Inadditionto
postingamessagethatcanbereadlater,twoormoreindividualswishingtocommunicate
moreimmediatelycanenterachatroomtoengageinrealtimedialogueinotherwords,by
typingmessagestooneanotherthatappearalmostimmediatelyon
10/61
7/18/2015
852
theothers'computerscreens.TheDistrictCourtfoundthatatanygiventime"tensof
thousandsofusersareengaginginconversationsonahugerangeofsubjects."6Itis"no
exaggerationtoconcludethatthecontentontheInternetisasdiverseashumanthought."7
ThebestknowncategoryofcommunicationovertheInternetistheWorldWideWeb,which
allowsuserstosearchforandretrieveinformationstoredinremotecomputers,aswellas,
insomecases,tocommunicatebacktodesignatedsites.Inconcreteterms,theWeb
consistsofavastnumberofdocumentsstoredindifferentcomputersallovertheworld.
Someofthesedocumentsaresimplyfilescontaininginformation.However,moreelaborate
documents,commonlyknownasWeb"pages,"arealsoprevalent.Eachhasitsown
address"ratherlikeatelephonenumber."sWebpagesfrequentlycontaininformationand
sometimesallowtheviewertocommunicatewiththepage's(or"site's")author.They
generallyalsocontain"links"tootherdocumentscreatedbythatsite'sauthorortoother
(generally)relatedsites.Typically,thelinksareeitherblueorunderlinedtextsometimes
images.
NavigatingtheWebisrelativelystraightforward.Ausermayeithertypetheaddressofa
knownpageorenteroneormorekeywordsintoacommercial"searchengine"inaneffortto
locatesitesonasubjectofinterest.AparticularWebpagemaycontaintheinformation
soughtbythe"surfer,"or,throughitslinks,itmaybeanavenuetootherdocumentslocated
anywhereontheInternet.UsersgenerallyexploreagivenWebpage,ormovetoanother,
byclickingacomputer"mouse"ononeofthepage'siconsorlinks.AccesstomostWeb
pagesisfreelyavailable,butsomeallowaccessonlytothosewhohavepurchasedtheright
froma
6Id.,at835(finding27).7Id.,at842(finding74).8Id.,at836(finding36).
11/61
7/18/2015
853
commercialprovider.TheWebisthuscomparable,fromthereaders'viewpoint,tobotha
vastlibraryincludingmillionsofreadilyavailableandindexedpublicationsandasprawling
mallofferinggoodsandservices.
Fromthepublishers'pointofview,itconstitutesavastplatformfromwhichtoaddressand
hearfromaworldwideaudienceofmillionsofreaders,viewers,researchers,andbuyers.
AnypersonororganizationwithacomputerconnectedtotheInternetcan"publish"
information.Publishersincludegovernmentagencies,educationalinstitutions,commercial
entities,advocacygroups,andindividuals.9Publishersmayeithermaketheirmaterial
availabletotheentirepoolofInternetusers,orconfineaccesstoaselectedgroup,suchas
thosewillingtopayfortheprivilege."Nosingleorganizationcontrolsanymembershipinthe
Web,noristhereanysinglecentralizedpointfromwhichindividualWebsitesorservices
canbeblockedfromtheWeb."10
SexuallyExplicitMaterial
SexuallyexplicitmaterialontheInternetincludestext,pictures,andchatand"extendsfrom
themodestlytitillatingtothehardestcore."11Thesefilesarecreated,named,andposted
inthesamemannerasmaterialthatisnotsexuallyexplicit,andmaybeaccessedeither
deliberatelyorunintentionallyduringthecourseofanimprecisesearch."Onceaprovider
postsitscontentontheInternet,itcannotpreventthatcontentfromenteringany
community."12Thus,forexample,
9"Webpublishingissimpleenoughthatthousandsofindividualusersandsmallcommunity
organizationsareusingtheWebtopublishtheirownpersonal'homepages,'theequivalent
ofindividualizednewslettersaboutthatpersonororganization,whichareavailableto
everyoneontheWeb."Id.,at837(finding42).
lId.,at838(finding46).11Id.,at844(finding82).12Ibid.(finding86).
12/61
7/18/2015
854
"whentheUCR/CaliforniaMuseumofPhotographypoststoitsWebsitenudes
byEdwardWestonandRobertMapplethorpetoannouncethatitsnewexhibit
willtraveltoBaltimoreandNewYorkCity,thoseimagesareavailablenotonly
inLosAngeles,Baltimore,andNewYorkCity,butalsoinCincinnati,Mobile,
orBeijingwhereverInternetuserslive.Similarly,thesafersexinstructionsthat
CriticalPathpoststoitsWebsite,writteninstreetlanguagesothatthe
teenagereceivercanunderstandthem,areavailablenotjustinPhiladelphia,
butalsoinProvoandPrague."13
SomeofthecommunicationsovertheInternetthatoriginateinforeigncountriesarealso
sexuallyexplicit.14
Thoughsuchmaterialiswidelyavailable,usersseldomencountersuchcontent
accidentally."Adocument'stitleoradescriptionofthedocumentwillusuallyappearbefore
thedocumentitself...andinmanycasestheuserwillreceivedetailedinformationabouta
site'scontentbeforeheorsheneedtakethesteptoaccessthedocument.Almostall
sexuallyexplicitimagesareprecededbywarningsastothecontent."15Forthatreason,
the"oddsareslim"thatauserwouldenterasexuallyexplicitsitebyaccident.16Unlike
communicationsreceivedbyradioortelevision,"thereceiptofinformationontheInternet
requiresaseriesofaffirmativestepsmoredeliberateanddirectedthanmerelyturninga
dial.Achildrequiressomesophisticationandsomeabilitytoreadtoretrievematerialand
therebytousetheInternetunattended."17
Systemshavebeendevelopedtohelpparentscontrolthematerialthatmaybeavailableon
ahomecomputerwithIn
13Ibid.(finding85).
14Id.,at848(finding117).15Id.,at844845(finding88).16Ibid.
17Id.,at845(finding89).
13/61
7/18/2015
855
ternetaccess.Asystemmayeitherlimitacomputer'saccesstoanapprovedlistofsources
thathavebeenidentifiedascontainingnoadultmaterial,itmayblockdesignated
inappropriatesites,oritmayattempttoblockmessagescontainingidentifiableobjectionable
features."Althoughparentalcontrolsoftwarecurrentlycanscreenforcertainsuggestive
wordsorforknownsexuallyexplicitsites,itcannotnowscreenforsexuallyexplicit
images."18Nevertheless,theevidenceindicatesthat"areasonablyeffectivemethodby
whichparentscanpreventtheirchildrenfromaccessingsexuallyexplicitandothermaterial
whichparentsmaybelieveisinappropriatefortheirchildrenwillsoonbewidelyavailable."
19
AgeVerification
TheproblemofageverificationdiffersfordifferentusesoftheInternet.TheDistrictCourt
categoricallydeterminedthatthere"isnoeffectivewaytodeterminetheidentityortheage
ofauserwhoisaccessingmaterialthroughemail,mailexploders,newsgroupsorchat
rooms."20TheGovernmentofferednoevidencethattherewasareliablewaytoscreen
recipientsandparticipantsinsuchforumsfor
18Id.,at842(finding72).19Ibid.(finding73).
2Id.,at845(finding90):"Anemailaddressprovidesnoauthoritativeinformationaboutthe
addressee,whomayuseanemail.alias.orananonymousremailer.Thereisalsono
universalorreliablelistingofemailaddressesandcorrespondingnamesortelephone
numbers,andanysuchlistingwouldbeorrapidlybecomeincomplete.Forthesereasons,
thereisnoreliablewayinmanyinstancesforasendertoknowiftheemailrecipientisan
adultoraminor.Thedifficultyofemailageverificationiscompoundedformailexploders
suchaslistservs,whichautomaticallysendinformationtoallemailaddressesonasender's
list.GovernmentexpertDr.Olsenagreedthatnocurrenttechnologycouldgiveaspeaker
assurancethatonlyadultswerelistedinaparticularmailexploder'smailinglist."
14/61
7/18/2015
856
age.Moreover,evenifitweretechnologicallyfeasibletoblockminors'accessto
newsgroupsandchatroomscontainingdiscussionsofart,politics,orothersubjectsthat
potentiallyelicit"indecent"or"patentlyoffensive"contributions,itwouldnotbepossibleto
blocktheiraccesstothatmaterialand"stillallowthemaccesstotheremainingcontent,
eveniftheoverwhelmingmajorityofthatcontentwasnotindecent."21
TechnologyexistsbywhichanoperatorofaWebsitemayconditionaccessonthe
verificationofrequestedinformationsuchasacreditcardnumberoranadultpassword.
Creditcardverificationisonlyfeasible,however,eitherinconnectionwithacommercial
transactioninwhichthecardisused,orbypaymenttoaverificationagency.Usingcredit
cardpossessionasasurrogateforproofofagewouldimposecostsonnoncommercialWeb
sitesthatwouldrequiremanyofthemtoshutdown.Forthatreason,atthetimeofthetrial,
creditcardverificationwas"effectivelyunavailabletoasubstantialnumberofInternet
contentproviders."929F.Supp.,at846(finding102).Moreover,theimpositionofsucha
requirement"wouldcompletelybaradultswhodonothaveacreditcardandlackthe
resourcestoobtainonefromaccessinganyblockedmaterial."22
Commercialpornographicsitesthatchargetheirusersforaccesshaveassignedthem
passwordsasamethodofageverification.Therecorddoesnotcontainanyevidence
concerningthereliabilityofthesetechnologies.Evenifpasswordsareeffectivefor
commercialpurveyorsofindecentmaterial,theDistrictCourtfoundthatanadultpassword
requirementwouldimposesignificantburdensonnoncommercialsites,bothbecausethey
woulddiscourageusersfromaccessingtheirsitesandbecausethecostofcreatingand
21Ibid.(finding93).
22Id.,at846(finding102).
15/61
7/18/2015
857
maintainingsuchscreeningsystemswouldbe"beyondtheirreach."23
Insum,theDistrictCourtfound:
"Evenifcreditcardverificationoradultpasswordverificationwere
implemented,theGovernmentpresentednotestimonyastohowsuch
systemscouldensurethattheuserofthepasswordorcreditcardisinfact
over18.Theburdensimposedbycreditcardverificationandadultpassword
verificationsystemsmakethemeffectivelyunavailabletoasubstantialnumber
ofInternetcontentproviders."Ibid.(finding107).
II
TheTelecommunicationsActof1996,Pub.L.104104,110Stat.56,wasanunusually
importantlegislativeenactment.Asstatedonthefirstofits103pages,itsprimarypurpose
wastoreduceregulationandencourage"therapiddeploymentofnewtelecommunications
technologies."ThemajorcomponentsofthestatutehavenothingtodowiththeInternet
theyweredesignedtopromotecompetitioninthelocaltelephoneservicemarket,the
multichannelvideomar
23Id.,at847(findings104106):
"Atleastsome,ifnotalmostall,noncommercialorganizations,suchastheACLU,Stop
PrisonerRapeorCriticalPathAIDSProject,regardcharginglistenerstoaccesstheir
speechascontrarytotheirgoalsofmakingtheirmaterialsavailabletoawideaudiencefree
ofcharge.
"Thereisevidencesuggestingthatadultusers,particularlycasualWebbrowsers,wouldbe
discouragedfromretrievinginformationthatrequireduseofacreditcardorpassword.
AndrewAnkertestifiedthatHotWiredhasreceivedmanycomplaintsfromitsmembers
aboutHotWired'sregistrationsystem,whichrequiresonlythatamembersupplyaname,e
mailaddressandselfcreatedpassword.Thereisconcernbycommercialcontentproviders
thatageverificationrequirementswoulddecreaseadvertisingandrevenuebecause
advertisersdependonademonstrationthatthesitesarewidelyavailableandfrequently
visited."
16/61
7/18/2015
858
ket,andthemarketforovertheairbroadcasting.TheActincludessevenTitles,sixofwhich
aretheproductofextensivecommitteehearingsandthesubjectofdiscussioninReports
preparedbyCommitteesoftheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentatives.Bycontrast,Title
Vknownasthe"CommunicationsDecencyActof1996"(CDA)containsprovisionsthat
wereeitheraddedinexecutivecommitteeafterthehearingswereconcludedoras
amendmentsofferedduringfloordebateonthelegislation.Anamendmentofferedinthe
Senatewasthesourceofthetwostatutoryprovisionschallengedinthiscase.24Theyare
informallyde
24SeeExonAmendmentNo.1268,141CongoRec.15536(1995).Seealsoid.,at15505.
Thisamendment,asrevised,became502oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996,110
Stat.133,47U.S.C.223(a)(e)(1994ed.,Supp.II).SomeMembersoftheHouseof
RepresentativesopposedtheExonAmendmentbecausetheythoughtit"possibleforour
parentsnowtochildproofthefamilycomputerwiththeseproductsavailableintheprivate
sector."TheyalsothoughttheSenate'sapproachwould"involvetheFederalGovernment
spendingvastsumsofmoneytryingtodefineelusivetermsthataregoingtoleadtoaflood
oflegalchallengeswhileourkidsareunprotected."TheseMembersofferedanamendment
intendedasasubstitutefortheExonAmendment,butinsteadenactedasanadditional
sectionoftheActentitled"OnlineFamilyEmpowerment."See110Stat.137,47U.S.C.
230(1994ed.,Supp.II)141CongoRec.27881(1995).Nohearingswereheldonthe
provisionsthatbecamelaw.SeeS.Rep.No.10423,p.9(1995).MtertheSenateadopted
theExonAmendment,however,itsJudiciaryCommitteedidconductaonedayhearingon
"CyberpornandChildren."Inhisopeningstatementatthathearing,SenatorLeahy
observed:
"Itreallystruckmeinyouropeningstatementwhenyoumentioned,Mr.Chairman,thatitis
thefirsteverhearing,andyouareabsolutelyright.Andyetwehadamajordebateonthe
floor,passedlegislationoverwhelminglyonasubjectinvolvingtheInternet,legislationthat
coulddramaticallychangesomewouldsayevenwreakhavocontheInternet.TheSenate
wentinwillynilly,passedlegislation,andneveroncehadahearing,neveroncehada
discussionotherthananhourorsoonthefloor."CyberpornandChildren:TheScopeofthe
Problem,TheStateoftheTechnology,andtheNeedforCongressionalAction,Hearingon
S.892beforetheSenateCommitteeontheJudiciary,104thCong.,1stSess.,78(1995).
17/61
7/18/2015
859
scribedasthe"indecenttransmission"provisionandthe"patentlyoffensivedisplay"
provision.25
Thefirst,47U.s.C.223(a)(1994ed.,Supp.II),prohibitstheknowingtransmissionof
obsceneorindecentmessagestoanyrecipientunder18yearsofage.Itprovidesin
pertinentpart:
"(a)Whoever
"(1)ininterstateorforeigncommunications
"(B)bymeansofatelecommunicationsdeviceknowingly
"(i)makes,creates,orsolicits,and"(ii)initiatesthetransmissionof,
"anycomment,request,suggestion,proposal,image,orothercommunication
whichisobsceneorindecent,knowingthattherecipientofthecommunication
isunder18yearsofage,regardlessofwhetherthemakerofsuch
communicationplacedthecallorinitiatedthecommunication
"(2)knowinglypermitsanytelecommunicationsfacilityunderhiscontroltobe
usedforanyactivityprohibitedbyparagraph(1)withtheintentthatitbeused
forsuchactivity,
"shallbefinedunderTitle18,orimprisonednotmorethantwoyears,orboth."
Thesecondprovision,223(d),prohibitstheknowingsendingordisplayingofpatently
offensivemessagesinamannerthatisavailabletoapersonunder18yearsofage.It
provides:
25AlthoughtheGovernmentandthedissentbreak223(d)(1)intotwoseparate"patently
offensive"and"display"provisions,wefollowtheconventionofbothpartiesbelow,aswell
astheDistrictCourt'sorderandopinion,indescribing223(d)(1)asoneprovision.
18/61
7/18/2015
860
"(d)Whoever
"(1)ininterstateorforeigncommunicationsknowingly
"(A)usesaninteractivecomputerservicetosendtoaspecificpersonor
personsunder18yearsofage,or
"(B)usesanyinteractivecomputerservicetodisplayinamanneravailableto
apersonunder18yearsofage,
"anycomment,request,suggestion,proposal,image,orothercommunication
that,incontext,depictsordescribes,intermspatentlyoffensiveasmeasured
bycontemporarycommunitystandards,sexualorexcretoryactivitiesor
organs,regardlessofwhethertheuserofsuchserviceplacedthecallor
initiatedthecommunicationor
"(2)knowinglypermitsanytelecommunicationsfacilityundersuchperson's
controltobeusedforanactivityprohibitedbyparagraph(1)withtheintent
thatitbeusedforsuchactivity,
"shallbefinedunderTitle18,orimprisonednotmorethantwoyears,orboth."
Thebreadthoftheseprohibitionsisqualifiedbytwoaffirmativedefenses.See223(e)
(5).26Onecoversthosewhotake"goodfaith,reasonable,effective,andappropriate
actions"torestrictaccessbyminorstotheprohibitedcommunications.223(e)(5)(A).The
othercoversthosewho
26Infull,223(e)(5)provides:
"(5)Itisadefensetoaprosecutionundersubsection(a)(l)(B)or(d)ofthissection,orunder
subsection(a)(2)ofthissectionwithrespecttotheuseofafacilityforanactivityunder
subsection(a)(l)(B)ofthissectionthataperson
"(A)hastaken,ingoodfaith,reasonable,effective,andappropriateactionsunderthe
circumstancestorestrictorpreventaccessbyminorstoacommunicationspecifiedinsuch
subsections,whichmayinvolveanyappropriatemeasurestorestrictminorsfromsuch
communications,includinganymethodwhichisfeasibleunderavailabletechnologyor
"(B)hasrestrictedaccesstosuchcommunicationbyrequiringuseofaverifiedcreditcard,
debitaccount,adultaccesscode,oradultpersonalidentificationnumber."
19/61
7/18/2015
20/61
7/18/2015
861
restrictaccesstocoveredmaterialbyrequiringcertaindesignatedformsofageproof,such
asaverifiedcreditcardoranadultidentificationnumberorcode.223(e)(5)(B).
III
OnFebruary8,1996,immediatelyafterthePresidentsignedthestatute,20plaintiffs27
filedsuitagainsttheAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStatesandtheDepartmentofJustice
challengingtheconstitutionalityof223(a)(1)and223(d).Aweeklater,basedonhis
conclusionthattheterm"indecent"wastoovaguetoprovidethebasisforacriminal
prosecution,DistrictJudgeBuckwalterenteredatemporaryrestrainingorderagainst
enforcementof223(a)(1)(B)(ii)insofarasitappliestoindecentcommunications.Asecond
suitwasthenfiledby27additionalplaintiffs,2Sthetwocases
27AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionHumanRightsWatchElectronicPrivacyInformation
CenterElectronicFrontierFoundationJournalismEducationAssociationComputer
ProfessionalsforSocialResponsibilityNationalWritersUnionClarinetCommunications
Corp.InstituteforGlobalCommunicationsStopPrisonerRapeAIDSEducationGlobal
InformationSystemBibliobytesQueerResourcesDirectoryCriticalPathAIDSProject,
Inc.WildcatPress,Inc.DeclanMcCullaghdbaJusticeonCampusBrockMeeksdba
CyberwireDispatchJohnTroyerdbaTheSaferSexPageJonathanWallacedbaThe
EthicalSpectacleandPlannedParenthoodFederationofAmerica,Inc.
28AmericanLibraryAssociationAmericaOnline,Inc.AmericanBooksellersAssociation,
Inc.AmericanBooksellersFoundationforFreeExpressionAmericanSocietyof
NewspaperEditorsAppleComputer,Inc.AssociationofAmericanPublishers,Inc.
AssociationofPublishers,EditorsandWritersCitizensInternetEmpowermentCoalition
CommercialInternetExchangeAssociationCompuServeIncorporatedFamiliesAgainst
InternetCensorshipFreedomtoReadFoundation,Inc.HealthSciencesLibraries
ConsortiumHotwiredVenturesLLCInteractiveDigitalSoftwareAssociationInteractive
ServicesAssociationMagazinePublishersofAmericaMicrosoftCorporationThe
MicrosoftNetwork,L.L.C.NationalPressPhotographersAssociationNetcomOnLine
CommunicationServices,Inc.NewspaperAssociationofAmericaOpnet,Inc.Prodigy
ServicesCompanySocietyofProfessionalJournalistsandWiredVentures,Ltd.
21/61
7/18/2015
862
wereconsolidated,andathreejudgeDistrictCourtwasconvenedpursuantto561ofthe
CDA.29Afteranevidentiaryhearing,thatcourtenteredapreliminaryinjunctionagainst
enforcementofbothofthechallengedprovisions.Eachofthethreejudgeswroteaseparate
opinion,buttheirjudgmentwasunanimous.
ChiefJudgeSloviterdoubtedthestrengthoftheGovernment'sinterestinregulating"the
vastrangeofonlinematerialcoveredorpotentiallycoveredbytheCDA,"butacknowledged
thattheinterestwas"compelling"withrespecttosomeofthatmaterial.929F.Supp.,at
853.Sheconcluded,nonetheless,thatthestatute"sweepsmorebroadlythannecessary
andtherebychillstheexpressionofadults"andthattheterms"patentlyoffensive"and
"indecent"were"inherentlyvague."Id.,at854.Shealsodeterminedthattheaffirmative
defenseswerenot"technologicallyoreconomicallyfeasibleformostproviders,"specifically
consideringandrejectinganargumentthatproviderscouldavoidliabilityby"tagging"their
materialinamannerthatwouldallowpotentialreaderstoscreenoutunwanted
transmissions.Id.,at856.ChiefJudgeSloviteralsorejectedtheGovernment'ssuggestion
thatthescopeofthestatutecouldbenarrowedbyconstruingittoapplyonlytocommercial
pornographers.Id.,at854855.
JudgeBuckwalterconcludedthattheword"indecent"in223(a)(1)(B)andtheterms
"patentlyoffensive"and"incontext"in223(d)(1)weresovaguethatcriminalenforcement
ofeithersectionwouldviolatethe"fundamentalconstitutionalprinciple"of"simplefairness,"
id.,at861,andthespecificprotectionsoftheFirstandFifthAmendments,id.,at858.He
foundnostatutorybasisfortheGovernment'sargumentthatthechallengedprovisions
wouldbeappliedonlyto"pornographic"materials,notingthat,unlikeobscenity,"indecency
hasnotbeendefinedtoexcludeworksofseriousliterary,artistic,politicalorscientific
value."Id.,at863.
29110Stat.142143,notefollowing47U.S.C.223(1994ed.,Supp.II).
22/61
7/18/2015
863
Moreover,theGovernment'sclaimthattheworkmustbeconsideredpatentlyoffensive"in
context"wasitselfvaguebecausetherelevantcontextmight"referto,amongotherthings,
thenatureofthecommunicationasawhole,thetimeofdayitwasconveyed,themedium
used,theidentityofthespeaker,orwhetherornotitisaccompaniedbyappropriate
warnings."Id.,at864.HebelievedthattheuniquenatureoftheInternetaggravatedthe
vaguenessofthestatute.Id.,at865,n.9.
JudgeDalzell'sreviewof"thespecialattributesofInternetcommunication"disclosedbythe
evidenceconvincedhimthattheFirstAmendmentdeniesCongressthepowertoregulate
thecontentofprotectedspeechontheInternet.Id.,at867.Hisopinionexplainedatlength
whyhebelievedtheCDAwouldabridgesignificantprotectedspeech,particularlyby
noncommercialspeakers,while"[p]erversely,commercialpornographerswouldremain
relativelyunaffected."Id.,at879.Heconstruedourcasesasrequiringa"mediumspecific"
approachtotheanalysisoftheregulationofmasscommunication,id.,at873,and
concludedthattheInternetas"themostparticipatoryformofmassspeechyetdeveloped,"
id.,at883isentitledto"thehighestprotectionfromgovernmentalintrusion,"ibid.30
30Seealso929F.Supp.,at877:"FourrelatedcharacteristicsofInternetcommunication
haveatranscendentimportancetooursharedholdingthattheCDAisunconstitutionalon
itsface.WeexplainthesecharacteristicsinourFindingsoffactabove,andIonlyrehearse
thembrieflyhere.First,theInternetpresentsverylowbarrierstoentry.Second,these
barrierstoentryareidenticalforbothspeakersandlisteners.Third,asaresultoftheselow
barriers,astoundinglydiversecontentisavailableontheInternet.Fourth,theInternet
providessignificantaccesstoallwhowishtospeakinthemedium,andevencreatesa
relativeparityamongspeakers."AccordingtoJudgeDalzell,thesecharacteristicsandthe
restoftheDistrictCourt'sfindings"leadtotheconclusionthatCongressmaynotregulate
indecencyontheInternetatall."Ibid.Becauseappelleesdonotpressthisargumentbefore
thisCourt,wedonotconsiderit.AppelleesalsodonotdisputethattheGovernment
generallyhasacompellinginterestinprotectingminorsfrom"indecent"and"patently
offensive"speech.
23/61
7/18/2015
864
ThejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtenjoinstheGovernmentfromenforcingtheprohibitionsin
223(a)(1)(B)insofarastheyrelateto"indecent"communications,butexpresslypreserves
theGovernment'srighttoinvestigateandprosecutetheobscenityorchildpornography
activitiesprohibitedtherein.Theinjunctionagainstenforcementof223(d)(1)and(2)is
unqualifiedbecausethoseprovisionscontainnoseparatereferencetoobscenityorchild
pornography.
TheGovernmentappealedundertheCDA'sspecialreviewprovisions,561,110Stat.142
143,andwenotedprobablejurisdiction,see519U.S.1025(1996).Initsappeal,the
GovernmentarguesthattheDistrictCourterredinholdingthattheCDAviolatedboththe
FirstAmendmentbecauseitisoverbroadandtheFifthAmendmentbecauseitisvague.
WhilewediscussthevaguenessoftheCDAbecauseofitsrelevancetotheFirst
Amendmentoverbreadthinquiry,weconcludethatthejudgmentshouldbeaffirmedwithout
reachingtheFifthAmendmentissue.Webeginouranalysisbyreviewingtheprincipal
authoritiesonwhichtheGovernmentrelies.Then,afterdescribingtheoverbreadthofthe
CDA,weconsidertheGovernment'sspecificcontentions,includingitssubmissionthatwe
saveportionsofthestatuteeitherbyseveranceorbyfashioningjudiciallimitationsonthe
scopeofitscoverage.
IV
Inarguingforreversal,theGovernmentcontendsthattheCDAisplainlyconstitutional
underthreeofourpriordecisions:(1)Ginsbergv.NewYork,390U.S.629(1968)(2)FCC
v.PacificaFoundation,438U.S.726(1978)and(3)Rentonv.PlaytimeTheatres,Inc.,475
U.S.41(1986).Acloselookatthesecases,however,raisesratherthanrelievesdoubts
concerningtheconstitutionalityoftheCDA.
InGinsberg,weupheldtheconstitutionalityofaNewYorkstatutethatprohibitedsellingto
minorsunder17yearsofagematerialthatwasconsideredobsceneastothemevenifnot
obsceneastoadults.Werejectedthedefendant'sbroad
24/61
7/18/2015
865
submissionthat"thescopeoftheconstitutionalfreedomofexpressionsecuredtoacitizen
toreadorseematerialconcernedwithsexcannotbemadetodependonwhetherthe
citizenisanadultoraminor."390U.S.,at636.Inrejectingthatcontention,wereliednot
onlyontheState'sindependentinterestinthewellbeingofitsyouth,butalsoonour
consistentrecognitionoftheprinciplethat"theparents'claimtoauthorityintheirown
householdtodirecttherearingoftheirchildrenisbasicinthestructureofoursociety."31
Infourimportantrespects,thestatuteupheldinGinsbergwasnarrowerthantheCDA.First,
wenotedinGinsbergthat"theprohibitionagainstsalestominorsdoesnotbarparentswho
sodesirefrompurchasingthemagazinesfortheirchildren."Id.,at639.UndertheCDA,by
contrast,neithertheparents'consentnoreventheirparticipationinthecommunication
wouldavoidtheapplicationofthestatute.32Second,theNewYorkstatuteappliedonlyto
commercialtransactions,id.,at647,whereastheCDAcontainsnosuchlimitation.Third,
theNewYorkstatutecabineditsdefinitionofmaterialthatisharmfultominorswiththe
requirementthatitbe"utterlywithoutredeemingsocialimportanceforminors."Id.,at646.
TheCDAfailstoprovideuswithanydefinitionoftheterm"indecent"asusedin223(a)(1)
and,importantly,omitsanyrequirementthatthe"patentlyoffensive"materialcoveredby
223(d)lackseriousliterary,artistic,political,orscientificvalue.Fourth,theNewYorkstatute
definedaminorasapersonundertheage
31390U.S.,at639.WequotedfromPrincev.Massachusetts,321U.S.158,166(1944):
"Itiscardinalwithusthatthecustody,careandnurtureofthechildresidefirstinthe
parents,whoseprimaryfunctionandfreedomincludepreparationforobligationsthestate
canneithersupplynorhinder."
32Giventhelikelihoodthatmanyemailtransmissionsfromanadulttoaminorare
conversationsbetweenfamilymembers,itisthereforeincorrectforthepartialdissentto
suggestthattheprovisionsoftheCDA,eveninthisnarrowarea,"arenodifferentfromthe
lawwesustainedinGinsberg."Post,at892.
25/61
7/18/2015
866
of17,whereastheCDA,inapplyingtoallthoseunder18years,includesanadditionalyear
ofthosenearestmajority.
InPacifica,weupheldadeclaratoryorderoftheFederalCommunicationsCommission,
holdingthatthebroadcastofarecordingofa12minutemonologueentitled"FilthyWords"
thathadpreviouslybeendeliveredtoaliveaudience"couldhavebeenthesubjectof
administrativesanctions."438U.S.,at730(internalquotationmarksomitted).The
Commissionhadfoundthattherepetitiveuseofcertainwordsreferringtoexcretoryor
sexualactivitiesororgans"inanafternoonbroadcastwhenchildrenareintheaudiencewas
patentlyoffensive"andconcludedthatthemonologuewasindecent"asbroadcast."Id.,at
735.Therespondentdidnotquarrelwiththefindingthattheafternoonbroadcastwas
patentlyoffensive,butcontendedthatitwasnot"indecent"withinthemeaningofthe
relevantstatutesbecauseitcontainednoprurientappeal.Afterrejectingrespondent's
statutoryarguments,weconfronteditstwoconstitutionalarguments:(1)thatthe
Commission'sconstructionofitsauthoritytobanindecentspeechwassobroadthatits
orderhadtobesetasideevenifthebroadcastatissuewasunprotectedand(2)thatsince
therecordingwasnotobscene,theFirstAmendmentforbadeanyabridgmentoftherightto
broadcastitontheradio.
IntheportionoftheleadopinionnotjoinedbyJusticesPowellandBlackmun,theplurality
statedthattheFirstAmendmentdoesnotprohibitallgovernmentalregulationthatdepends
onthecontentofspeech.Id.,at742743.Accordingly,theavailabilityofconstitutional
protectionforavulgarandoffensivemonologuethatwasnotobscenedependedonthe
contextofthebroadcast.Id.,at744748.Relyingonthepremisethat"ofallformsof
communication"broadcastinghadreceivedthemostlimitedFirstAmendmentprotection,
id.,at748749,theCourtconcludedthattheeasewithwhichchildrenmayobtainaccessto
broadcasts,
26/61
7/18/2015
867
"coupledwiththeconcernsrecognizedinGinsberg,"justifiedspecialtreatmentofindecent
broadcasting.Id.,at749750.
AswiththeNewYorkstatuteatissueinGinsberg,therearesignificantdifferencesbetween
theorderupheldinPacificaandtheCDA.First,theorderinPacifica,issuedbyanagency
thathadbeenregulatingradiostationsfordecades,targetedaspecificbroadcastthat
representedaratherdramaticdeparturefromtraditionalprogramcontentinorderto
designatewhenratherthanwhetheritwouldbepermissibletoairsuchaprograminthat
particularmedium.TheCDA'sbroadcategoricalprohibitionsarenotlimitedtoparticular
timesandarenotdependentonanyevaluationbyanagencyfamiliarwiththeunique
characteristicsoftheInternet.Second,unliketheCDA,theCommission'sdeclaratoryorder
wasnotpunitiveweexpresslyrefusedtodecidewhethertheindecentbroadcast"would
justifyacriminalprosecution."438U.S.,at750.Finally,theCommission'sorderappliedto
amediumwhichasamatterofhistoryhad"receivedthemostlimitedFirstAmendment
protection,"id.,at748,inlargepartbecausewarningscouldnotadequatelyprotectthe
listenerfromunexpectedprogramcontent.TheInternet,however,hasnocomparable
history.Moreover,theDistrictCourtfoundthattheriskofencounteringindecentmaterialby
accidentisremotebecauseaseriesofaffirmativestepsisrequiredtoaccessspecific
material.
InRenton,weupheldazoningordinancethatkeptadultmovietheatersoutofresidential
neighborhoods.Theordinancewasaimed,notatthecontentofthefilmsshowninthe
theaters,butratheratthe"secondaryeffects"suchascrimeanddeterioratingproperty
valuesthatthesetheatersfostered:"'Itisthee]secondaryeffectwhichthesezoning
ordinancesattempttoavoid,notthedisseminationof"offensive"speech.'''475U.S.,at49
(quotingYoungv.AmericanMiniTheatres,Inc.,427U.S.50,71,n.34(1976)).According
totheGovernment,theCDAisconstitutionalbe
27/61
7/18/2015
868
causeitconstitutesasortof"cyberzoning"ontheInternet.ButtheCDAappliesbroadlyto
theentireuniverseofcyberspace.AndthepurposeoftheCDAistoprotectchildrenfrom
theprimaryeffectsof"indecent"and"patentlyoffensive"speech,ratherthanany
"secondary"effectofsuchspeech.Thus,theCDAisacontentbasedblanketrestrictionon
speech,and,assuch,cannotbe"properlyanalyzedasaformoftime,place,andmanner
regulation."475U.S.,at46.SeealsoBoosv.Barry,485U.S.312,321(1988)
("Regulationsthatfocusonthedirectimpactofspeechonitsaudience"arenotproperly
analyzedunderRenton)ForsythCountyv.NationalistMovement,505U.S.123,134
(1992)("Listeners'reactiontospeechisnotacontentneutralbasisforregulation").
Theseprecedents,then,surelydonotrequireustoupholdtheCDAandarefullyconsistent
withtheapplicationofthemoststringentreviewofitsprovisions.
v
InSoutheasternPromotions,Ltd.v.Conrad,420U.S.546,557(1975),weobservedthat"
[e]achmediumofexpression...maypresentitsownproblems."Thus,someofourcases
haverecognizedspecialjustificationsforregulationofthebroadcastmediathatarenot
applicabletootherspeakers,seeRedLionBroadcastingCo.v.FCC,395U.S.367(1969)
FCCv.PacificaFoundation,438U.S.726(1978).Inthesecases,theCourtreliedonthe
historyofextensiveGovernmentregulationofthebroadcastmedium,see,e.g.,RedLion,
395U.S.,at399400thescarcityofavailablefrequenciesatitsinception,see,e.g.,Turner
BroadcastingSystem,Inc.v.FCC,512U.S.622,637638(1994)andits"invasive"nature,
seeSableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,492U.S.115,128(1989).
Thosefactorsarenotpresentincyberspace.Neitherbeforenoraftertheenactmentofthe
CDAhavethevastdemocraticforumsoftheInternetbeensubjecttothetype
28/61
7/18/2015
869
ofgovernmentsupervisionandregulationthathasattendedthebroadcastindustry.33
Moreover,theInternetisnotas"invasive"asradioortelevision.TheDistrictCourt
specificallyfoundthat"[c]ommunicationsovertheInternetdonot'invade'anindividual's
homeorappearonone'scomputerscreenunbidden.Usersseldomencountercontent'by
accident.'"929F.Supp.,at844(finding88).Italsofoundthat"[a]lmostallsexuallyexplicit
imagesareprecededbywarningsastothecontent,"andcitedtestimonythat"'oddsare
slim'thatauserwouldcomeacrossasexuallyexplicitsightbyaccident."Ibid.
WedistinguishedPacificainSable,492U.S.,at128,onjustthisbasis.InSable,a
companyengagedinthebusinessofofferingsexuallyorientedprerecordedtelephone
messages(popularlyknownas"dialaporn")challengedtheconstitutionalityofan
amendmenttotheCommunicationsActof1934thatimposedablanketprohibitionon
indecentaswellasobsceneinterstatecommercialtelephonemessages.Weheldthatthe
statutewasconstitutionalinsofarasitappliedtoobscenemessagesbutinvalidasappliedto
indecentmessages.Inattemptingtojustifythecompletebanandcriminalizationofindecent
commercialtelephonemessages,theGovernmentreliedonPacifica,arguingthattheban
wasnecessarytopreventchildrenfromgainingaccesstosuchmessages.Weagreedthat
"thereisacompellinginterestinprotectingthephysicalandpsychologicalwellbeingof
minors"whichextendedtoshieldingthemfromindecentmessagesthatarenotobsceneby
adultstandards,492U.S.,at
33Cf.PacificaFoundationv.FCC,556F.2d9,36(CADC1977)(LevanthaI,J.,dissenting),
rev'd,FCCv.PacificaFoundation,438U.S.726(1978).WhenPacificawasdecided,given
thatradiostationswereallowedtooperateonlypursuanttofederallicense,andthat
Congresshadenactedlegislationprohibitinglicenseesfrombroadcastingindecentspeech,
therewasariskthatmembersoftheradioaudiencemightinfersomesortofofficialor
societalapprovalofwhateverwasheardovertheradio,see556F.2d,at37,n.18.Nosuch
riskattendsmessagesreceivedthroughtheInternet,whichisnotsupervisedbyanyfederal
agency.
29/61
7/18/2015
870
126,butdistinguishedour"emphaticallynarrowholding"inPacificabecauseitdidnot
involveacompletebanandbecauseitinvolvedadifferentmediumofcommunication,id.,at
127.Weexplainedthat"thedialitmediumrequiresthelistenertotakeaffirmativestepsto
receivethecommunication."Id.,at127128."Placingatelephonecall,"wecontinued,"is
notthesameasturningonaradioandbeingtakenbysurprisebyanindecentmessage."
Id.,at128.
Finally,unliketheconditionsthatprevailedwhenCongressfirstauthorizedregulationofthe
broadcastspectrum,theInternetcanhardlybeconsidereda"scarce"expressive
commodity.Itprovidesrelativelyunlimited,lowcostcapacityforcommunicationofallkinds.
TheGovernmentestimatesthat"[a]smanyas40millionpeopleusetheInternettoday,and
thatfigureisexpectedtogrowto200millionby1999."34Thisdynamic,multifaceted
categoryofcommunicationincludesnotonlytraditionalprintandnewsservices,butalso
audio,video,andstillimages,aswellasinteractive,realtimedialogue.Throughtheuseof
chatrooms,anypersonwithaphonelinecanbecomeatowncrierwithavoicethat
resonatesfartherthanitcouldfromanysoapbox.ThroughtheuseofWebpages,mail
exploders,andnewsgroups,thesameindividualcanbecomeapamphleteer.AstheDistrict
Courtfound,"thecontentontheInternetisasdiverseashumanthought."929F.Supp.,at
842(finding74).Weagreewithitsconclusionthatourcasesprovidenobasisforqualifying
thelevelofFirstAmendmentscrutinythatshouldbeappliedtothismedium.
VI
RegardlessofwhethertheCDAissovaguethatitviolatestheFifthAmendment,themany
ambiguitiesconcerningthescopeofitscoveragerenderitproblematicforpurposesofthe
FirstAmendment.Forinstance,eachofthetwoparts
34Juris.Statement3(citing929F.Supp.,at831(finding3)).
30/61
7/18/2015
871
oftheCDAusesadifferentlinguisticform.Thefirstusestheword"indecent,"47U.s.C.
223(a)(1994ed.,Supp.II),whilethesecondspeaksofmaterialthat"incontext,depictsor
describes,intermspatentlyoffensiveasmeasuredbycontemporarycommunitystandards,
sexualorexcretoryactivitiesororgans,"223(d).Giventheabsenceofadefinitionofeither
term,35thisdifferenceinlanguagewillprovokeuncertaintyamongspeakersabouthowthe
twostandardsrelatetoeachother36andjustwhattheymean.37Couldaspeaker
confidentlyassumethataseriousdiscussionaboutbirthcontrolpractices,homosexuality,
theFirstAmendmentissuesraisedbytheAppendixtoourPacificaopinion,orthe
consequencesofprisonrapewouldnotviolatetheCDA?Thisuncertaintyunderminesthe
likelihoodthattheCDAhasbeencarefullytailoredtothecongressionalgoalofprotecting
minorsfrompotentiallyharmfulmaterials.
ThevaguenessoftheCDAisamatterofspecialconcernfortworeasons.First,theCDAis
acontentbasedregulationofspeech.Thevaguenessofsucharegulationraises
35"Indecent"doesnotbenefitfromanytextualembellishmentatall.
"Patentlyoffensive"isqualifiedonlytotheextentthatitinvolves"sexualorexcretory
activitiesororgans"taken"incontext"and"measuredbycontemporarycommunity
standards."
36SeeGozlonPeretzv.UnitedStates,498U.S.395,404(1991)("[W]hereCongress
includesparticularlanguageinonesectionofastatutebutomitsitinanothersectionofthe
sameAct,itisgenerallypresumedthatCongressactsintentionallyandpurposelyinthe
disparateinclusionandexclusion"(internalquotationmarksomitted)).
37Thestatutedoesnotindicatewhetherthe"patentlyoffensive"and"indecent"
determinationsshouldbemadewithrespecttominorsorthepopulationasawhole.The
Governmentassertsthattheappropriatestandardis"whatissuitablematerialforminors."
ReplyBriefforAppellants18,n.13(citingGinsbergv.NewYork,390U.S.629,633
(1968)).ButtheConfereesexpresslyrejectedamendmentsthatwouldhaveimposedsucha
"harmfultominors"standard.SeeS.Conf.Rep.No.104230,p.189(1996)(S.Conf.Rep.),
142CongoRec.H1145,H1165H1166(Feb.1,1996).TheConfereesalsorejected
amendmentsthatwouldhavelimitedtheproscribedmaterialstothoselackingredeeming
value.Seeibid.
31/61
7/18/2015
872
specialFirstAmendmentconcernsbecauseofitsobviouschillingeffectonfreespeech.
See,e.g.,Gentilev.StateBarofNev.,501U.S.1030,10481051(1991).Second,the
CDAisacriminalstatute.Inadditiontotheopprobriumandstigmaofacriminalconviction,
theCDAthreatensviolatorswithpenaltiesincludinguptotwoyearsinprisonforeachactof
violation.Theseverityofcriminalsanctionsmaywellcausespeakerstoremainsilentrather
thancommunicateevenarguablyunlawfulwords,ideas,andimages.See,e.g.,
Dombrowskiv.Pfister,380U.S.479,494(1965).Asapracticalmatter,thisincreased
deterrenteffect,coupledwiththe"riskofdiscriminatoryenforcement"ofvagueregulations,
posesgreaterFirstAmendmentconcernsthanthoseimplicatedbythecivilregulation
reviewedinDenverAreaEd.TelecommunicationsConsortium,Inc.v.FCC,518U.S.727
(1996).
TheGovernmentarguesthatthestatuteisnomorevaguethantheobscenitystandardthis
CourtestablishedinMillerv.California,413U.S.15(1973).Butthatisnotso.InMiller,this
Courtreviewedacriminalconvictionagainstacommercialvendorwhomailedbrochures
containingpicturesofsexuallyexplicitactivitiestoindividualswhohadnotrequestedsuch
materials.Id.,at18.Havingstruggledforsometimetoestablishadefinitionofobscenity,we
setforthinMillerthetestforobscenitythatcontrolstothisday:
"(a)whethertheaverageperson,applyingcontemporarycommunitystandards
wouldfindthatthework,takenasawhole,appealstotheprurientinterest(b)
whethertheworkdepictsordescribes,inapatentlyoffensiveway,sexual
conductspecificallydefinedbytheapplicablestatelawand(c)whetherthe
work,takenasawhole,lacksseriousliterary,artistic,political,orscientific
value."Id.,at24(internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted).
32/61
7/18/2015
873
BecausetheCDA's"patentlyoffensive"standard(and,weassume,arguendo,its
synonymous"indecent"standard)isonepartofthethreeprongMillertest,theGovernment
reasons,itcannotbeunconstitutionallyvague.
TheGovernment'sassertionisincorrectasamatteroffact.ThesecondprongoftheMiller
testthepurportedlyanalogousstandardcontainsacriticalrequirementthatisomittedfrom
theCDA:thattheproscribedmaterialbe"specificallydefinedbytheapplicablestatelaw."
Thisrequirementreducesthevaguenessinherentintheopenendedterm"patently
offensive"asusedintheCDA.Moreover,theMillerdefinitionislimitedto"sexualconduct,"
whereastheCDAextendsalsotoinclude(1)"excretoryactivities"aswellas(2)"organs"of
bothasexualandexcretorynature.
TheGovernment'sreasoningisalsoflawed.Justbecauseadefinitionincludingthree
limitationsisnotvague,itdoesnotfollowthatoneofthoselimitations,standingbyitself,is
notvague.38EachofMiller'sadditionaltwoprongs(l)that,takenasawhole,thematerial
appealtothe"prurient"interest,and(2)thatit"lac[k]seriousliterary,artistic,political,or
scientificvalue"criticallylimitstheuncertainsweepoftheobscenitydefinition.Thesecond
requirementisparticularlyimportantbecause,unlikethe"patentlyoffensive"and"prurient
interest"criteria,itisnotjudgedbycontemporarycommunitystandards.SeePopev.Illinois,
481U.S.497,500(1987).This"societalvalue"requirement,absentintheCDA,allows
appellatecourtstoimposesomelimitationsandregularityonthedefinitionbysetting,asa
matteroflaw,anationalfloorforsociallyredeemingvalue.TheGovernment'scontention
thatcourtswillbeabletogivesuchlegallimitationstotheCDA'sstandardsisbeliedby
Miller'sownrationaleforhavingjuriesdeterminewhethermaterial
38Eventhoughtheword"trunk,"standingalone,mightrefertoluggage,aswimmingsuit,
thebaseofatree,orthelongnoseofananimal,itsmeaningisclearwhenitisoneprongof
athreepartdescriptionofaspeciesofgrayanimals.
33/61
7/18/2015
874
is"patentlyoffensive"accordingtocommunitystandards:thatsuchquestionsare
essentiallyonesoffact.39
IncontrasttoMillerandourotherpreviouscases,theCDAthuspresentsagreaterthreatof
censoringspeechthat,infact,fallsoutsidethestatute'sscope.Giventhevaguecontoursof
thecoverageofthestatute,itunquestionablysilencessomespeakerswhosemessages
wouldbeentitledtoconstitutionalprotection.Thatdangerprovidesfurtherreasonfor
insistingthatthestatutenotbeoverlybroad.TheCDA'sburdenonprotectedspeechcannot
bejustifiedifitcouldbeavoidedbyamorecarefullydraftedstatute.
VII
WearepersuadedthattheCDAlackstheprecisionthattheFirstAmendmentrequireswhen
astatuteregulatesthecontentofspeech.Inordertodenyminorsaccesstopotentially
harmfulspeech,theCDAeffectivelysuppressesalargeamountofspeechthatadultshave
aconstitutionalrighttoreceiveandtoaddresstooneanother.Thatburdenonadultspeech
isunacceptableiflessrestrictivealternativeswouldbeatleastaseffectiveinachievingthe
legitimatepurposethatthestatutewasenactedtoserve.
Inevaluatingthefreespeechrightsofadults,wehavemadeitperfectlyclearthat"[s]exual
expressionwhichisindecentbutnotobsceneisprotectedbytheFirstAmendment."Sable,
492U.S.,at126.SeealsoCareyv.PopulationServicesInt'l,431U.S.678,701(1977)("
[W]hereobscenityisnotinvolved,wehaveconsistentlyheldthatthe
39413U.S.,at30(Determinationsof"whatappealstothe'prurientinterest'oris'patently
offensive'...areessentiallyquestionsoffact,andourNationissimplytoobigandtoo
diverseforthisCourttoreasonablyexpectthatsuchstandardscouldbearticulatedforall50
Statesinasingleformulation,evenassumingtheprerequisiteconsensusexists").The
CDA,whichimplementsthe"contemporarycommunitystandards"languageofMiller,thus
conflictswiththeConferees'ownassertionthattheCDAwasintended"toestablisha
uniformnationalstandardofcontentregulation."S.Conf.Rep.,at191.
34/61
7/18/2015
875
factthatprotectedspeechmaybeoffensivetosomedoesnotjustifyitssuppression").
Indeed,Pacificaitselfadmonishedthat"thefactthatsocietymayfindspeechoffensiveis
notasufficientreasonforsuppressingit."438U.S.,at745.
Itistruethatwehaverepeatedlyrecognizedthegovernmentalinterestinprotectingchildren
fromharmfulmaterials.SeeGinsberg,390U.S.,at639Pacifica,438U.S.,at749.Butthat
interestdoesnotjustifyanunnecessarilybroadsuppressionofspeechaddressedtoadults.
Aswehaveexplained,theGovernmentmaynot"reduc[e]theadultpopulation...to...only
whatisfitforchildren."Denver,518U.S.,at759(internalquotationmarksomitted)(quoting
Sable,492U.S.,at128).40"[R]egardlessofthestrengthofthegovernment'sinterest"in
protectingchildren,"[t]helevelofdiscoursereachingamailboxsimplycannotbelimitedto
thatwhichwouldbesuitableforasandbox."Bolgerv.YoungsDrugProductsCorp.,463U.
S.60,7475(1983).
TheDistrictCourtwascorrecttoconcludethattheCDAeffectivelyresemblesthebanon
"dialaporn"invalidatedinSable.929F.Supp.,at854.InSable,492U.S.,at129,this
Courtrejectedtheargumentthatweshoulddefertothecongressionaljudgmentthat
nothinglessthanatotalbanwouldbeeffectiveinpreventingenterprisingyoungstersfrom
gainingaccesstoindecentcommunications.Sablethusmadeclearthatthemerefactthata
statutoryregulationofspeechwasenactedfortheimportantpurposeofprotectingchildren
fromexposuretosexuallyexplicitmaterialdoesnotforecloseinquiryintoitsvalidity.41As
wepointedoutlast
40Accord,Butlerv.Michigan,352U.S.380,383(1957)(banonsaletoadultsofbooks
deemedharmfultochildrenunconstitutional)SableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,
492U.S.115,128(1989)(banon"dialaporn"messagesunconstitutional)Bolgerv.
YoungsDrugProductsCorp.,463U.S.60,73(1983)(banonmailingofunsolicited
advertisementforcontraceptivesunconstitutional).
41ThelackoflegislativeattentiontothestatuteatissueinSablesuggestsanotherparallel
withthiscase.Compare492U.S.,at129130("[A]sidefromconc1usorystatementsduring
thedebatesbyproponentsof
35/61
7/18/2015
876
Term,thatinquiryembodiesan"overarchingcommitment"tomakesurethatCongresshas
designeditsstatutetoaccomplishitspurpose"withoutimposinganunnecessarilygreat
restrictiononspeech."Denver,518U.S.,at741.
InarguingthattheCDAdoesnotsodiminishadultcommunication,theGovernmentrelies
ontheincorrectfactualpremisethatprohibitingatransmissionwheneveritisknownthat
oneofitsrecipientsisaminorwouldnotinterferewithadulttoadultcommunication.The
findingsoftheDistrictCourtmakeclearthatthispremiseisuntenable.Giventhesizeofthe
potentialaudienceformostmessages,intheabsenceofaviableageverificationprocess,
thesendermustbechargedwithknowingthatoneormoreminorswilllikelyviewit.
Knowledgethat,forinstance,oneormoremembersofa100personchatgroupwillbea
minorandthereforethatitwouldbeacrimetosendthegroupanindecentmessagewould
surelyburdencommunicationamongadults.42
TheDistrictCourtfoundthatatthetimeoftrialexistingtechnologydidnotincludeany
effectivemethodforasendertopreventminorsfromobtainingaccesstoits
communicationsontheInternetwithoutalsodenyingaccesstoadults.TheCourtfoundno
effectivewaytodeterminetheageofauserwhoisaccessingmaterialthroughemail,mail
exploders,newsgroups,orchatrooms.929F.Supp.,at845(findings9094).Asapractical
matter,theCourtalsofound
thebill,aswellassimilarassertionsinhearingsonasubstantiallyidenticalbilltheyear
before,...thecongressionalrecordpresentedtouscontainsnoevidenceastohow
effectiveorineffectivetheFCC'smostrecentregulationswereormightprovetobe....No
CongressmanorSenatorpurportedtopresentaconsideredjudgmentwithrespecttohow
oftenortowhatextentminorscouldorwouldcircumventtherulesandhaveaccesstodial
apornmessages"(footnoteomitted)),withn.24,supra.
42TheGovernmentagreesthattheseprovisionsareapplicablewhenever"asender
transmitsamessagetomorethanonerecipient,knowingthatatleastoneofthespecific
personsreceivingthemessageisaminor."OppositiontoMotiontoAffirmandReplyto
Juris.Statement45,n.1.
36/61
7/18/2015
877
thatitwouldbeprohibitivelyexpensivefornoncommercialaswellassomecommercial
speakerswhohaveWebsitestoverifythattheirusersareadults.Id.,at845848(findings
95116).43Theselimitationsmustinevitablycurtailasignificantamountofadult
communicationontheInternet.Bycontrast,theDistrictCourtfoundthat"[dJespiteits
limitations,currentlyavailableuserbasedsoftwaresuggeststhatareasonablyeffective
methodbywhichparentscanpreventtheirchildrenfromaccessingsexuallyexplicitand
othermaterialwhichparentsmaybelieveisinappropriatefortheirchildrenwillsoonbe
widelyavailable."Id.,at842(finding73)(emphasesadded).
ThebreadthoftheCDA'scoverageiswhollyunprecedented.Unliketheregulationsupheld
inGinsbergandPacifica,thescopeoftheCDAisnotlimitedtocommercialspeechor
commercialentities.Itsopenendedprohibitionsembraceallnonprofitentitiesand
individualspostingindecentmessagesordisplayingthemontheirowncomputersinthe
presenceofminors.Thegeneral,undefinedterms"indecent"and"patentlyoffensive"cover
largeamountsofnonpornographicmaterialwithseriouseducationalorothervalue.44
Moreover,the"communitystandards"criterionasappliedtotheInternetmeansthatany
communicationavail
43TheGovernmentassertsthat"[t]hereisnothingconstitutionallysuspectaboutrequiring
commercialWebsiteoperators...toshoulderthemodestburdensassociatedwiththeir
use."BriefforAppellants35.Asamatteroffact,however,thereisnoevidencethata
"modestburden"wouldbeeffective.
44Transmittingobscenityandchildpornography,whetherviatheInternetorothermeans,
isalreadyillegalunderfederallawforbothadultsandjuveniles.See18U.S.C.1464
1465(criminalizingobscenity)2251(criminalizingchildpornography).Infact,when
CongresswasconsideringtheCDA,theGovernmentexpresseditsviewthatthelawwas
unnecessarybecauseexistinglawsalreadyauthorizeditsongoingeffortstoprosecute
obscenity,childpornography,andchildsolicitation.See141CongoRec.16026(1995)
(letterfromKentMarkus,ActingAssistantAttorneyGeneral,U.S.DepartmentofJustice,to
Sen.Leahy).
37/61
7/18/2015
878
abletoanationwideaudiencewillbejudgedbythestandardsofthecommunitymostlikely
tobeoffendedbythemessage.45Theregulatedsubjectmatterincludesanyoftheseven
"dirtywords"usedinthePacificamonologue,theuseofwhichtheGovernment'sexpert
acknowledgedcouldconstituteafelony.SeeOlsenTestimony,Tr.Vol.V,53:1654:10.It
mayalsoextendtodiscussionsaboutprisonrapeorsafesexualpractices,artisticimages
thatincludenudesubjects,andarguablythecardcatalogoftheCarnegieLibrary.
Forthepurposesofourdecision,weneedneitheracceptnorrejecttheGovernment's
submissionthattheFirstAmendmentdoesnotforbidablanketprohibitiononall"indecent"
and"patentlyoffensive"messagescommunicatedtoa17yearoldnomatterhowmuch
valuethemessagemaycontainandregardlessofparentalapproval.Itisatleastclearthat
thestrengthoftheGovernment'sinterestinprotectingminorsisnotequallystrong
throughoutthecoverageofthisbroadstatute.UndertheCDA,aparentallowingher17
yearoldtousethefamilycomputertoobtaininformationontheInternetthatshe,inher
parentaljudgment,deemsappropriatecouldfacealengthyprisonterm.See47U.S.C.
223(a)(2)(1994ed.,Supp.II).Similarly,aparentwhosenthis17yearoldcollegefreshman
informationonbirthcontrolviaemailcouldbeincarceratedeventhoughneitherhe,his
child,noranyoneintheirhomecommunityfoundthematerial"indecent"or"patently
offensive,"ifthecollegetown'scommunitythoughtotherwise.
45CitingChurchofLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.Hialeah,508U.S.520(1993),amongother
cases,appelleesofferanadditionalreasonwhy,intheirview,theCDAfailsstrictscrutiny.
Becausesomuchsexuallyexplicitcontentoriginatesoverseas,theyargue,theCDAcannot
be"effective."BriefforAppelleesAmericanLibraryAssociationetal.3334.Thisargument
raisesdifficultissuesregardingtheintended,aswellasthepermissiblescopeof,
extraterritorialapplicationoftheCDA.Wefinditunnecessarytoaddressthoseissuesto
disposeofthiscase.
38/61
7/18/2015
879
Thebreadthofthiscontentbasedrestrictionofspeechimposesanespeciallyheavyburden
ontheGovernmenttoexplainwhyalessrestrictiveprovisionwouldnotbeaseffectiveas
theCDA.Ithasnotdoneso.TheargumentsinthisCourthavereferredtopossible
alternativessuchasrequiringthatindecentmaterialbe"tagged"inawaythatfacilitates
parentalcontrolofmaterialcomingintotheirhomes,makingexceptionsformessageswith
artisticoreducationalvalue,providingsometoleranceforparentalchoice,andregulating
someportionsoftheInternetsuchascommercialWebsitesdifferentlyfromothers,suchas
chatrooms.ParticularlyinthelightoftheabsenceofanydetailedfindingsbytheCongress,
orevenhearingsaddressingthespecialproblemsoftheCDA,wearepersuadedthatthe
CDAisnotnarrowlytailoredifthatrequirementhasanymeaningatall.
VIII
InanattempttocurtailtheCDA'sfacialoverbreadth,theGovernmentadvancesthree
additionalargumentsforsustainingtheAct'saffirmativeprohibitions:(1)thattheCDAis
constitutionalbecauseitleavesopenample"alternativechannels"ofcommunication(2)
thattheplainmeaningoftheCDA's"knowledge"and"specificperson"requirement
significantlyrestrictsitspermissibleapplicationsand(3)thattheCDA'sprohibitionsare
"almostalways"limitedtomateriallackingredeemingsocialvalue.
TheGovernmentfirstcontendsthat,eventhoughtheCDAeffectivelycensorsdiscourseon
manyoftheInternet'smodalitiessuchaschatgroups,newsgroups,andmailexplodersitis
nonethelessconstitutionalbecauseitprovidesa"reasonableopportunity"forspeakersto
engageintherestrictedspeechontheWorldWideWeb.BriefforAppellants39.This
argumentisunpersuasivebecausetheCDAregulatesspeechonthebasisofitscontent.A
"time,place,andmanner"analysisisthereforeinapplicable.SeeConsolidatedEdisonCo.
ofN.Y.v.PublicServoComm'nofN.Y.,
39/61
7/18/2015
880
447U.S.530,536(1980).Itisthusimmaterialwhethersuchspeechwouldbefeasibleon
theWeb(which,astheGovernment'sownexpertacknowledged,wouldcostupto$10,000
ifthespeaker'sinterestswerenotaccommodatedbyanexistingWebsite,notincluding
costsfordatabasemanagementandageverification).TheGovernment'spositionis
equivalenttoarguingthatastatutecouldbanleafletsoncertainsubjectsaslongas
individualsarefreetopublishbooks.Ininvalidatinganumberoflawsthatbannedleafletting
onthestreetsregardlessoftheircontent,weexplainedthat"oneisnottohavetheexercise
ofhislibertyofexpressioninappropriateplacesabridgedonthepleathatitmaybe
exercisedinsomeotherplace."Schneiderv.State(TownofIrvington),308U.S.147,163
(1939).
TheGovernmentalsoassertsthatthe"knowledge"requirementofboth223(a)and(d),
especiallywhencoupledwiththe"specificchild"elementfoundin223(d),savestheCDA
fromoverbreadth.Becausebothsectionsprohibitthedisseminationofindecentmessages
onlytopersonsknowntobeunder18,theGovernmentargues,itdoesnotrequire
transmittersto"refrainfromcommunicatingindecentmaterialtoadultstheyneedonly
refrainfromdisseminatingsuchmaterialstopersonstheyknowtobeunder18."Brieffor
Appellants24.ThisargumentignoresthefactthatmostInternetforumsincludingchat
rooms,newsgroups,mailexploders,andtheWebareopentoallcomers.The
Government'sassertionthattheknowledgerequirementsomehowprotectsthe
communicationsofadultsisthereforeuntenable.Eventhestrongestreadingofthe"specific
person"requirementof223(d)cannotsavethestatute.Itwouldconferbroadpowersof
censorship,intheformofa"heckler'sveto,"uponanyopponentofindecentspeechwho
mightsimplylogonandinformthewouldbediscoursersthathis17yearoldchilda
"specificperson...under18yearsofage,"47U.S.C.223(d)(1)(A)(1994ed.,Supp.H)
wouldbepresent.
40/61
7/18/2015
881
Finally,wefindnotextualsupportfortheGovernment'ssubmissionthatmaterialhaving
scientific,educational,orotherredeemingsocialvaluewillnecessarilyfalloutsidetheCDA's
"patentlyoffensive"and"indecent"prohibitions.Seealson.37,supra.
IX
TheGovernment'sthreeremainingargumentsfocusonthedefensesprovidedin223(e)
(5).46First,relyingonthe"goodfaith,reasonable,effective,andappropriateactions"
provision,theGovernmentsuggeststhat"tagging"providesadefensethatsavesthe
constitutionalityoftheCDA.Thesuggestionassumesthattransmittersmayencodetheir
indecentcommunicationsinawaythatwouldindicatetheircontents,thuspermitting
recipientstoblocktheirreceptionwithappropriatesoftware.Itistherequirementthatthe
goodfaithactionmustbe"effective"thatmakesthisdefenseillusory.TheGovernment
recognizesthatitsproposedscreeningsoftwaredoesnotcurrentlyexist.Evenifitdid,there
isnowaytoknowwhetherapotentialrecipientwillactuallyblocktheencodedmaterial.
WithouttheimpossibleknowledgethateveryguardianinAmericaisscreeningforthe"tag,"
thetransmittercouldnotreasonablyrelyonitsactiontobe"effective."
Foritssecondandthirdargumentsconcerningdefenseswhichwecanconsidertogetherthe
Governmentreliesonthelatterhalfof223(e)(5),whichapplieswhenthetransmitterhas
restrictedaccessbyrequiringuseofaverifiedcreditcardoradultidentification.Such
verificationisnotonlytechnologicallyavailablebutactuallyisusedbycommercialproviders
ofsexuallyexplicitmaterial.Theseproviders,therefore,wouldbeprotectedbythedefense.
UnderthefindingsoftheDistrictCourt,however,itisnoteconomicallyfeasibleformost
noncommercialspeakerstoemploysuchverification.Accordingly,thisdefensewouldnot
signifi
46Forthefulltextof223(e)(5),seen.26,supra.
41/61
7/18/2015
882
cantlynarrowthestatute'sburdenonnoncommercialspeech.Evenwithrespecttothe
commercialpornographersthatwouldbeprotectedbythedefense,theGovernmentfailed
toadduceanyevidencethattheseverificationtechniquesactuallyprecludeminorsfrom
posingasadults.47Giventhattheriskofcriminalsanctions"hoversovereachcontent
provider,liketheproverbialswordofDamocles,"48theDistrictCourtcorrectlyrefusedto
relyonunprovenfuturetechnologytosavethestatute.TheGovernmentthusfailedtoprove
thattheproffereddefensewouldsignificantlyreducetheheavyburdenonadultspeech
producedbytheprohibitiononoffensivedisplays.
WeagreewiththeDistrictCourt'sconclusionthattheCDAplacesanunacceptablyheavy
burdenonprotectedspeech,andthatthedefensesdonotconstitutethesortof"narrow
tailoring"thatwillsaveanotherwisepatentlyinvalidunconstitutionalprovision.InSable,492
U.S.,at127,weremarkedthatthespeechrestrictionatissuethereamountedto"'burn[ing]
thehousetoroastthepig.'"TheCDA,castingafardarkershadowoverfreespeech,
threatenstotorchalargesegmentoftheInternetcommunity.
X
Atoralargument,theGovernmentreliedheavilyonitsultimatefallbackposition:Ifthis
CourtshouldconcludethattheCDAisinsufficientlytailored,iturged,weshouldsavethe
statute'sconstitutionalitybyhonoringtheseverabilityclause,see47U.S.C.608,and
construingnonseverabletermsnarrowly.Inonlyonerespectisthisargumentacceptable.
Aseverabilityclauserequirestextualprovisionsthatcanbesevered.Wewillfollow608's
guidancebyleavingcon
47Thus,ironically,thisdefensemaysignificantlyprotectcommercialpurveyorsofobscene
postingswhileprovidinglittle(orno)benefitfortransmittersofindecentmessagesthathave
significantsocialorartisticvalue.48929F.Supp.,at855856.
42/61
7/18/2015
883
stitutionaltextualelementsofthestatuteintactintheoneplacewheretheyare,infact,
severable.The"indecency"provision,47U.S.C.223(a)(1994ed.,Supp.II),appliesto
"anycomment,request,suggestion,proposal,image,orothercommunicationwhichis
obsceneorindecent."(Emphasisadded.)Appelleesdonotchallengetheapplicationofthe
statutetoobscenespeech,which,theyacknowledge,canbebannedtotallybecauseit
enjoysnoFirstAmendmentprotection.SeeMiller,413U.S.,at18.Assetforthbythe
statute,therestrictionof"obscene"materialenjoysatextualmanifestationseparatefrom
thatfor"indecent"material,whichwehaveheldunconstitutional.Therefore,wewillsever
theterm"orindecent"fromthestatute,leavingtherestof223(a)standing.Innoother
respect,however,can223(a)or223(d)besavedbysuchatextualsurgery.
TheGovernmentalsodrawsonanadditional,lesstraditionalaspectoftheCDA's
severabilityclause,47U.S.C.608,whichasksanyreviewingcourtthatholdsthestatute
faciallyunconstitutionalnottoinvalidatetheCDAinapplicationto"otherpersonsor
circumstances"thatmightbeconstitutionallypermissible.ItfurtherinvokesthisCourt's
admonitionthat,absent"countervailingconsiderations,"astatuteshould"bedeclared
invalidtotheextentitreachestoofar,butotherwiseleftintact."Brockettv.Spokane
Arcades,Inc.,472U.S.491,503504(1985).Therearetwoflawsinthisargument.
First,thestatutethatgrantsourjurisdictionforthisexpeditedreview,561ofthe
TelecommunicationsActof1961,notefollowing47U.S.C.223(1994ed.,Supp.II),limits
thatjurisdictionalgranttoactionschallengingtheCDA"onitsface."Consistentwith561,
theplaintiffswhobroughtthissuitandthethreejudgepanelthatdecidedittreateditasa
facialchallenge.Wehavenoauthority,inthisparticularposture,toconvertthislitigationinto
an"asapplied"challenge.Nor,giventhevastarrayofplaintiffs,therangeoftheir
expressiveactivities,andthevaguenessofthestat
43/61
7/18/2015
884
ute,woulditbepracticabletolimitourholdingtoajudiciallydefinedsetofspecific
applications.
Second,oneofthe"countervailingconsiderations"mentionedinBrockettispresenthere.In
consideringafacialchallenge,thisCourtmayimposealimitingconstructiononastatute
onlyifitis"readilysusceptible"tosuchaconstruction.Virginiav.AmericanBooksellers
Assn.,Inc.,484U.S.383,397(1988).SeealsoErznoznikv.Jacksonville,422U.S.205,
216(1975)("readilysubject"tonarrowingconstruction).Theopenendedcharacterofthe
CDAprovidesnoguidancewhateverforlimitingitscoverage.
Thiscaseisthereforeunlikethoseinwhichwehaveconstruedastatutenarrowlybecause
thetextorothersourceofcongressionalintentidentifiedaclearlinethatthisCourtcould
draw.Cf.,e.g.,Brockett,472U.S.,at504505(invalidatingobscenitystatuteonlytothe
extentthatword"lust"wasactuallyoreffectivelyexcisedfromstatute)UnitedStatesv.
Grace,461U.S.171,180183(1983)(invalidatingfederalstatutebanningexpressive
displaysonlyinsofarasitextendedtopublicsidewalkswhenclearlinecouldbedrawn
betweensidewalksandothergroundsthatcomportedwithcongressionalpurposeof
protectingthebuilding,grounds,andpeopletherein).Rather,ourdecisioninUnitedStates
v.TreasuryEmployees,513U.S.454,479,n.26(1995),isapplicable.Inthatcase,we
declinedto"dra[w]oneormorelinesbetweencategoriesofspeechcoveredbyanoverly
broadstatute,whenCongresshassentinconsistentsignalsastowherethenewlineor
linesshouldbedrawn"becausedoingso"involvesafarmoreseriousinvasionofthe
legislativedomain."49ThisCourt"willnotrewritea...law
49AsthisCourtlongagoexplained:"Itwouldcertainlybedangerousifthelegislaturecould
setanetlargeenoughtocatchallpossibleoffenders,andleaveittothecourtstostep
insideandsaywhocouldberightfullydetained,andwhoshouldbesetatlarge.Thiswould,
tosomeextent,substitutethejudicialforthelegislativedepartmentofthegovernment."
UnitedStatesv.Reese,92U.S.214,221(1876).Inpartbecauseofthese
44/61
7/18/2015
885
toconformittoconstitutionalrequirements."AmericanBooksellers,484U.S.,at397.50
XI
InthisCourt,thoughnotintheDistrictCourt,theGovernmentassertsthatinadditiontoits
interestinprotectingchildrenits"[e]quallysignificant"interestinfosteringthegrowthofthe
InternetprovidesanindependentbasisforupholdingtheconstitutionalityoftheCDA.Brief
forAppellants19.TheGovernmentapparentlyassumesthattheunregulatedavailabilityof
"indecent"and"patentlyoffensive"materialontheInternetisdrivingcountlesscitizensaway
fromthemediumbecauseoftheriskofexposingthemselvesortheirchildrentoharmful
material.
Wefindthisargumentsingularlyunpersuasive.Thedramaticexpansionofthisnew
marketplaceofideascontradictsthefactualbasisofthiscontention.Therecord
demonstratesthatthegrowthoftheInternethasbeenandcontinuestobephenomenal.As
amatterofconstitutionaltradition,intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,wepresume
thatgovernmentalregulationofthecontentofspeechismorelikelytointerferewiththefree
exchangeofideasthantoencourageit.Theinterestinencouragingfreedomofexpression
inademocraticsocietyoutweighsanytheoreticalbutunprovenbenefitofcensorship.
Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtisaffirmed.
Itissoordered.
separationofpowersconcerns,wehaveheldthataseverabilityclauseis"anaidmerely
notaninexorablecommand."Dorchyv.Kansas,264U.S.286,290(1924).
50SeealsoOsbornev.Ohio,495U.S.103,121(1990)(judicialrewritingofstatuteswould
derogateCongress'"incentivetodraftanarrowlytailoredlawinthefirstplace").
45/61
7/18/2015
886
JUSTICEO'CONNOR,withwhomTHECHIEFJUSTICEjoins,concurringinthejudgment
inpartanddissentinginpart.
IwriteseparatelytoexplainwhyIviewtheCommunicationsDecencyActof1996(CDA)as
littlemorethananattemptbyCongresstocreate"adultzones"ontheInternet.Our
precedentindicatesthatthecreationofsuchzonescanbeconstitutionallysound.Despite
thesoundnessofitspurpose,however,portionsoftheCDAareunconstitutionalbecause
theystrayfromtheblueprintourpriorcaseshavedevelopedforconstructinga"zoninglaw"
thatpassesconstitutionalmuster.
AppelleesbringafacialchallengetothreeprovisionsoftheCDA.Thefirst,whichtheCourt
describesasthe"indecencytransmission"provision,makesitacrimetoknowinglytransmit
anobsceneorindecentmessageorimagetoapersonthesenderknowsisunder18years
old.47U.S.C.223(a)(1)(B)(1994ed.,Supp.II).WhattheCourtclassifiesasasingle"
'patentlyoffensivedisplay'"provision,seeante,at859,isinrealitytwoseparateprovisions.
Thefirstofthesemakesitacrimetoknowinglysendapatentlyoffensivemessageorimage
toaspecificpersonundertheageof18("specificperson"provision).223(d)(1)(A).The
secondcriminalizesthedisplayofpatentlyoffensivemessagesorimages"ina[ny]manner
available"tominors("display"provision).223(d)(1)(B).Noneoftheseprovisionspurports
tokeepindecent(orpatentlyoffensive)materialawayfromadults,whohaveaFirst
Amendmentrighttoobtainthisspeech.SableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,492U.
S.115,126(1989)("Sexualexpressionwhichisindecentbutnotobsceneisprotectedby
theFirstAmendment").Thus,theundeniablepurposeoftheCDAistosegregateindecent
materialontheInternetintocertainareasthatminorscannotaccess.SeeS.Conf.Rep.No.
104230,p.189(1996)(CDAimposes"accessrestrictions...toprotectminorsfrom
exposuretoindecentmaterial").
46/61
7/18/2015
887
Thecreationof"adultzones"isbynomeansanovelconcept.Stateshavelongdenied
minorsaccesstocertainestablishmentsfrequentedbyadults.1Stateshavealsodenied
minorsaccesstospeechdeemedtobe"harmfultominors."2
1See,e.g.,AlaskaStat.Ann.11.66.300(1996)(nominorsin"adultentertainment"
places)Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.133556(1989)(nominorsinplaceswherepeopleexpose
themselves)Ark.CodeAnn.527223,527224(1993)(nominorsinpoolroomsand
bars)Colo.Rev.Stat.187502(2)(1986)(nominorsinplacesdisplayingmoviesorshows
thatare"harmfultochildren")Del.CodeAnn.,Tit.11,1365(i)(2)(1995)(same)D.C.
CodeAnn.222001(b)(I)(B)(1996)(same)Fla.Stat.847.013(2)(1994)(same)Ga.
CodeAnn.1612103(b)(1996)(same)Haw.Rev.Stat.7121215(1)(b)(1994)(no
minorsinmoviehousesorshowsthatare"pornographicforminors")IdahoCode18
1515(2)(1987)(nominorsinplacesdisplayingmoviesorshowsthatare"harmfulto
minors")La.Rev.Stat.Ann.14:91.11(B)(West1986)(nominorsinplacesdisplaying
moviesthatdepictsexactsandappealtominors'prurientinterest)Md.Ann.Code,Art.27,
416E(1996)(nominorsinestablishmentswherecertainenumeratedactsareperformedor
portrayed)Mich.CompoLaws750.141(1991)(nominorswithoutanadultinplaces
wherealcoholissold)Minn.Stat.617.294(1987andSupp.1997)(nominorsinplaces
displayingmoviesorshowsthatare"harmfultominors")Miss.CodeAnn.97511(1994)
(nominorsinpoolrooms,billiardhalls,orwherealcoholissold)Mo.Rev.Stat.573.507
(1995)(nominorsinadultcabarets)Neb.Rev.Stat.28809(1995)(nominorsinplaces
displayingmoviesorshowsthatare"harmfultominors")Nev.Rev.Stat.201.265(3)
(1997)(same)N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.571B:2(II)(1986)(same)N.M.Stat.Ann.30373
(1989)(same)N.Y.PenalLaw235.21(2)(McKinney1989)(same)N.D.Cent.Code
12.127.103(1985andSupp.1995)(same)18Pa.Cons.Stat.5903(a)(Supp.1997)
(same)S.D.CompoLawsAnn.222430(1988)(same)Tenn.CodeAnn.3917911(b)
(1991)(same)Vt.Stat.Ann.,Tit.13,2802(b)(1974)(same)Va.CodeAnn.18.2391
(1996)(same).
2See,e.g.,Ala.Code13A12200.5(1994)Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.133506(1989)Ark.
CodeAnn.568502(1993)Cal.PenalCodeAnn.313.1(WestSupp.1997)Colo.Rev.
Stat.187502(1)(1986)Conn.Gen.Stat.53a196(1994)Del.CodeAnn.,Tit.11,
1365(i)(I)(1995)D.C.CodeAnn.222001(b)(I)(A)(1996)Fla.Stat.847.012(1994)
Ga.CodeAnn.1612103(a)(1996)Haw.Rev.Stat.7121215(1)(1994)IdahoCode
181515(1)(1987)Ill.CompoStat.,ch.720,5/1121(1993)Ind.Code354933(1)
(Supp.1996)IowaCode728.2(1993)Kan.Stat.Ann.214301c(a)(2)(1988)La.Rev.
47/61
7/18/2015
Stat.Ann.14:91.11(B)(West1986)
48/61
7/18/2015
888
TheCourthaspreviouslysustainedsuchzoninglaws,butonlyiftheyrespecttheFirst
Amendmentrightsofadultsandminors.Thatistosay,azoninglawisvalidif(i)itdoesnot
undulyrestrictadultaccesstothematerialand(ii)minorshavenoFirstAmendmentrightto
readorviewthebannedmaterial.AsappliedtotheInternetasitexistsin1997,the"display"
provisionandsomeapplicationsofthe"indecencytransmission"and"specificperson"
provisionsfailtoadheretothefirstoftheselimitingprinciplesbyrestrictingadults'accessto
protectedmaterialsincertaincircumstances.UnliketheCourt,however,Iwouldinvalidate
theprovisionsonlyinthosecircumstances.
I
Ourcasesmakeclearthata"zoning"lawisvalidonlyifadultsarestillabletoobtainthe
regulatedspeech.Iftheycannot,thelawdoesmorethansimplykeepchildrenawayfrom
speechtheyhavenorighttoobtainitinterfereswiththerightsofadultstoobtain
constitutionallyprotectedspeechandeffectively"reduce[s]theadultpopulation...toreading
onlywhatisfitforchildren."Butlerv.Michigan,352U.S.380,383(1957).TheFirst
Amendmentdoesnottoleratesuchinterference.Seeibid.(strikingdownaMichi
Md.Ann.Code,Art.27,416B(1996)Mass.Gen.Laws,ch.272,28(1992)Minn.Stat.
617.293(1987andSupp.1997)Miss.CodeAnn.97511(1994)Mo.Rev.Stat.
573.040(1995)Mont.CodeAnn.458206(1995)Neb.Rev.Stat.28808(1995)Nev.
Rev.Stat.201.265(1),(2)(1997)N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.571B:2(I)(1986)N.M.Stat.
Ann.30372(1989)N.Y.PenalLaw235.21(1)(McKinney1989)N.C.Gen.Stat.
14190.15(a)(1993)N.D.Cent.Code12.127.103(1985andSupp.1995)OhioRev.
CodeAnn.2907.31(A)(I)(Supp.1997)Okla.Stat.,Tit.21,1040.76(2)(Supp.1997)18
Pa.Cons.Stat.5903(c)(Supp.1997)R.1.Gen.Laws113110(a)(1996)S.C.Code
Ann.1615385(A)(Supp.1996)S.D.CompoLawsAnn.222428(1988)Tenn.Code
Ann.3917911(a)(1991)Tex.PenalCodeAnn.43.24(b)(1994)UtahCodeAnn.
76101206(2)(1995)Vt.Stat.Ann.,Tit.13,2802(a)(1974)Va.CodeAnn.18.2391
(1996)Wash.Rev.Code9.68.060(1988andSupp.1997)Wis.Stat.948.11(2)(Supp.
1995).
49/61
7/18/2015
889
gancriminallawbanningsaleofbookstominorsoradultsthatcontainedwordsorpictures
that"'tende[d]to...corrup[t]themoralsofyouth'")SableCommunications,supra
(invalidatingfederallawthatmadeitacrimetotransmitindecent,butnonobscene,
commercialtelephonemessagestominorsandadults)Bolgerv.YoungsDrugProducts
Corp.,463U.S.60,74(1983)(strikingdownafederallawprohibitingthemailingof
unsolicitedadvertisementsforcontraceptives).Ifthelawdoesnotundulyrestrictadults'
accesstoconstitutionallyprotectedspeech,however,itmaybevalid.InGinsbergv.New
York,390U.S.629,634(1968),forexample,theCourtsustainedaNewYorklawthat
barredstoreownersfromsellingpornographicmagazinestominorsinpartbecauseadults
couldstillbuythosemagazines.
TheCourtinGinsbergconcludedthattheNewYorklawcreatedaconstitutionallyadequate
adultzonesimplybecause,onitsface,itdeniedaccessonlytominors.TheCourtdidnot
questionandthereforenecessarilyassumedthatanadultzone,oncecreated,would
succeedinpreservingadults'accesswhiledenyingminors'accesstotheregulatedspeech.
Beforetoday,therewasnoreasontoquestionthisassumption,fortheCourthaspreviously
onlyconsideredlawsthatoperatedinthephysicalworld,aworldthatwithtwo
characteristicsthatmakeitpossibletocreate"adultzones":geographyandidentity.See
Lessig,ReadingtheConstitutioninCyberspace,45EmoryL.J.869,886(1996).Aminor
canseeanadultdanceshowonlyifheentersanestablishmentthatprovidessuch
entertainment.Andshouldheattempttodoso,theminorwillnotbeabletoconceal
completelyhisidentity(or,consequently,hisage).Thus,thetwincharacteristicsof
geographyandidentityenabletheestablishment'sproprietortopreventchildrenfrom
enteringtheestablishment,buttoletadultsinside.
Theelectronicworldisfundamentallydifferent.Becauseitisnomorethanthe
interconnectionofelectronicpathways,cyberspaceallowsspeakersandlistenerstomask
theiriden
50/61
7/18/2015
890
tities.CyberspaceundeniablyreflectssomeformofgeographychatroomsandWebsites,
forexample,existatfixed"locations"ontheInternet.Sinceuserscantransmitandreceive
messagesontheInternetwithoutrevealinganythingabouttheiridentitiesorages,seeid.,
at901,however,itisnotcurrentlypossibletoexcludepersonsfromaccessingcertain
messagesonthebasisoftheiridentity.
Cyberspacediffersfromthephysicalworldinanotherbasicway:Cyberspaceismalleable.
Thus,itispossibletoconstructbarriersincyberspaceandusethemtoscreenforidentity,
makingcyberspacemorelikethephysicalworldand,consequently,moreamenableto
zoninglaws.Thistransformationofcyberspaceisalreadyunderway.Id.,at888889id.,at
887(cyberspace"ismoving...fromarelativelyunzonedplacetoauniversethatis
extraordinarilywellzoned").Internetspeakers(userswhopostmaterialontheInternet)
havebeguntozonecyberspaceitselfthroughtheuseof"gateway"technology.Such
technologyrequiresInternetuserstoenterinformationaboutthemselvesperhapsanadult
identificationnumberoracreditcardnumberbeforetheycanaccesscertainareasof
cyberspace,929F.Supp.824,845(EDPa.1996),muchlikeabouncerchecksaperson's
driver'slicensebeforeadmittinghimtoanightclub.Internetuserswhoaccessinformation
havenotattemptedtozonecyberspaceitself,buthavetriedtolimittheirownpowerto
accessinformationincyberspace,muchasaparentcontrolswhatherchildrenwatchon
televisionbyinstallingalockbox.Thisuserbasedzoningisaccomplishedthroughtheuse
ofscreeningsoftware(suchasCyberPatrolorSurfWatch)orbrowserswithscreening
capabilities,bothofwhichsearchaddressesandtextforkeywordsthatareassociatedwith
"adult"sitesand,iftheuserwishes,blocksaccesstosuchsites.Id.,at839842.The
PlatformforInternetContentSelectionprojectisdesignedtofacilitateuserbasedzoningby
encouragingInternetspeakerstoratethecontent
51/61
7/18/2015
891
oftheirspeechusingcodesrecognizedbyallscreeningprograms.Id.,at838839.
Despitethisprogress,thetransformationofcyberspaceisnotcomplete.Althoughgateway
technologyhasbeenavailableontheWorldWideWebforsometimenow,id.,at845Shea
v.Reno,930F.Supp.916,933934(SDNY1996),itisnotavailabletoallWebspeakers,
929F.Supp.,at845846,andisjustnowbecomingtechnologicallyfeasibleforchatrooms
andUSENETnewsgroups,BriefforAppellants3738.Gatewaytechnologyisnotubiquitous
incyberspace,andbecausewithoutit"thereisnomeansofageverification,"cyberspace
stillremainslargelyunzonedandunzoneable.929F.Supp.,at846Shea,supra,at934.U
serbasedzoningisalsoinitsinfancy.Forittobeeffective,(i)anagreeduponcode(or
"tag")wouldhavetoexist(ii)screeningsoftwareorbrowserswithscreeningcapabilities
wouldhavetobeabletorecognizethe"tag"and(iii)thoseprogramswouldhavetobe
widelyavailableandwidelyusedbyInternetusers.Atpresent,noneoftheseconditionsis
true.Screeningsoftware"isnotinwideusetoday"and"onlyahandfulofbrowsershave
screeningcapabilities."Shea,supra,at945946.Thereis,moreover,noagreedupon"tag"
forthoseprogramstorecognize.929F.Supp.,at848Shea,supra,at945.
AlthoughtheprospectsfortheeventualzoningoftheInternetappearpromising,Iagreewith
theCourtthatwemustevaluatetheconstitutionalityoftheCDAasitappliestotheInternet
asitexiststoday.Ante,at881.Giventhepresentstateofcyberspace,Iagreewiththe
Courtthatthe"display"provisioncannotpassmuster.Untilgatewaytechnologyisavailable
throughoutcyberspace,anditisnotin1997,aspeakercannotbereasonablyassuredthat
thespeechhedisplayswillreachonlyadultsbecauseitisimpossibletoconfinespeechto
an"adultzone."Thus,theonlywayforaspeakertoavoidliabilityundertheCDAisto
refraincompletelyfromusingindecentspeech.Butthis
52/61
7/18/2015
892
forcedsilenceimpingesontheFirstAmendmentrightofadultstomakeandobtainthis
speechand,forallintentsandpurposes,"reduce[s]theadultpopulation[ontheInternet]to
readingonlywhatisfitforchildren."Butler,352U.S.,at383.Asaresult,the"display"
provisioncannotwithstandscrutiny.Accord,SableCommunications,492U.S.,at126131
Bolgerv.YoungsDrugProductsCorp.,463U.S.,at7375.
The"indecencytransmission"and"specificperson"provisionspresentacloserissue,for
theyarenotunconstitutionalinalloftheirapplications.Asdiscussedabove,the"indecency
transmission"provisionmakesitacrimetotransmitknowinglyanindecentmessagetoa
personthesenderknowsisunder18yearsofage.47U.S.C.223(a)(1)(B)(1994ed.,
Supp.II).The"specificperson"provisionproscribesthesameconduct,althoughitdoesnot
asexplicitlyrequirethesendertoknowthattheintendedrecipientofhisindecentmessage
isaminor.223(d)(1)(A).TheGovernmenturgestheCourttoconstruetheprovisionto
imposesuchaknowledgerequirement,seeBriefforAppellants2527,andIwoulddoso.
SeeEdwardJ.DeBartoloCorp.v.FloridaGulfCoastBuilding&Constr.TradesCouncil,
485U.S.568,575(1988)("[W]hereanotherwiseacceptableconstructionofastatute
wouldraiseseriousconstitutionalproblems,theCourtwillconstruethestatutetoavoidsuch
problemsunlesssuchconstructionisplainlycontrarytotheintentofCongress").
Soconstrued,bothprovisionsareconstitutionalasappliedtoaconversationinvolvingonly
anadultandoneormoreminorse.g.,whenanadultspeakersendsanemailknowingthe
addresseeisaminor,orwhenanadultandminorconversebythemselvesorwithother
minorsinachatroom.Inthiscontext,theseprovisionsarenodifferentfromthelawwe
sustainedinGinsberg.Restrictingwhattheadultmaysaytotheminorsinnowayrestricts
theadult'sabilitytocommunicatewithotheradults.Heisnotpreventedfrom
53/61
7/18/2015
893
speakingindecentlytootheradultsinachatroom(becausetherearenootheradults
participatingintheconversation)andheremainsfreetosendindecentemailstoother
adults.Therelevantuniversecontainsonlyoneadult,andtheadultinthatuniversehasthe
powertorefrainfromusingindecentspeechandconsequentlytokeepallsuchspeech
withintheroominan"adult"zone.
TheanalogytoGinsbergbreaksdown,however,whenmorethanoneadultisapartytothe
conversation.Ifaminorentersachatroomotherwiseoccupiedbyadults,theCDA
effectivelyrequirestheadultsintheroomtostopusingindecentspeech.Iftheydidnot,they
couldbeprosecutedunderthe"indecencytransmission"and"specificperson"provisionsfor
anyindecentstatementstheymaketothegroup,sincetheywouldbetransmittingan
indecentmessagetospecificpersons,oneofwhomisaminor.Accord,ante,at876.The
CDAisthereforeakintoalawthatmakesitacrimeforabookstoreownertosell
pornographicmagazinestoanyoneonceaminorentershisstore.Evenassumingsucha
lawmightbeconstitutionalinthephysicalworldasareasonablealternativetoexcluding
minorscompletelyfromthestore,theabsenceofanymeansofexcludingminorsfromchat
roomsincyberspacerestrictstherightsofadultstoengageinindecentspeechinthose
rooms.The"indecencytransmission"and"specificperson"provisionssharethisdefect.
Butthesetwoprovisionsdonotinfringeonadults'speechinallsituations.Andasdiscussed
below,Idonotfindthattheprovisionsareoverbroadinthesensethattheyrestrictminors'
accesstoasubstantialamountofspeechthatminorshavetherighttoreadandview.
Accordingly,theCDAcanbeappliedconstitutionallyinsomesituations.Normally,thisfact
wouldrequiretheCourttorejectadirectfacialchallenge.UnitedStatesv.Salerno,481U.
S.739,745(1987)("AfacialchallengetoalegislativeAct[succeedsonlyif]thechallenger
...establish[es]thatnosetofcircum
54/61
7/18/2015
894
stancesexistsunderwhichtheActwouldbevalid").Appellees'claimarisesundertheFirst
Amendment,however,andtheyarguethattheCDAisfaciallyinvalidbecauseitis
"substantiallyoverbroad"thatis,it"sweepstoobroadly...[and]penaliz[es]asubstantial
amountofspeechthatisconstitutionallyprotected,"ForsythCountyv.Nationalist
Movement,505U.S.123,130(1992).SeeBriefforAppelleesAmericanLibraryAssociation
etal.48BriefforAppelleesAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionetal.3941.Iagreewiththe
Courtthattheprovisionsareoverbroadinthattheycoveranyandallcommunications
betweenadultsandminors,regardlessofhowmanyadultsmightbepartoftheaudienceto
thecommunication.
Thisconclusiondoesnotendthematter,however.
Where,ashere,"thepartieschallengingthestatutearethosewhodesiretoengagein
protectedspeechthattheoverbroadstatutepurportstopunish,...[t]hestatutemayforthwith
bedeclaredinvalidtotheextentthatitreachestoofar,butotherwiseleftintact."Brockettv.
SpokaneArcades,Inc.,472U.S.491,504(1985).ThereisnoquestionthatCongress
intendedtoprohibitcertaincommunicationsbetweenoneadultandoneormoreminors.
See47U.S.C.223(a)(1)(B)(1994ed.,Supp.II)(punishing"[w]hoever...initiatesthe
transmissionof[anyindecentcommunication]knowingthattherecipientofthe
communicationisunder18yearsofage")223(d)(1)(A)(punishing"[w]hoever...send[s]
toaspecificpersonorpersonsunder18yearsofage[apatentlyoffensivemessage]").
ThereisalsonoquestionthatCongresswouldhaveenactedanarrowerversionofthese
provisionshaditknownabroaderversionwouldbedeclaredunconstitutional.47U.S.C.
608("If...theapplication[ofanyprovisionoftheCDA]toanypersonorcircumstanceis
heldinvalid,...theapplicationofsuchprovisiontootherpersonsorcircumstancesshallnot
beaffectedthereby").Iwouldthereforesustainthe"indecencytransmission"and"specific
person"provisionstotheextentthey
55/61
7/18/2015
895
applytothetransmissionofInternetcommunicationswherethepartyinitiatingthe
communicationknowsthatalloftherecipientsareminors.
II
WhethertheCDAsubstantiallyinterfereswiththeFirstAmendmentrightsofminors,and
therebyrunsafoulofthesecondcharacteristicofvalidzoninglaws,presentsacloser
question.InGinsberg,theNewYorklawwesustainedprohibitedthesaletominorsof
magazinesthatwere"harmfultominors."Underthatlaw,amagazinewas"harmfulto
minors"onlyifitwasobsceneastominors.390U.S.,at632633.Notingthatobscene
speechisnotprotectedbytheFirstAmendment,Rothv.UnitedStates,354U.S.476,485
(1957),andthatNewYorkwasconstitutionallyfreetoadjustthedefinitionofobscenityfor
minors,390U.S.,at638,theCourtconcludedthatthelawdidnot"invad[e]theareaof
freedomofexpressionconstitutionallysecuredtominors,"id.,at637.NewYorktherefore
didnotinfringeupontheFirstAmendmentrightsofminors.Cf.Erznoznikv.Jacksonville,
422U.S.205,213(1975)(strikingdowncityordinancethatbannednuditythatwasnot
"obsceneevenastominors").
TheCourtneither"accept[s]norreject[s]"theargumentthattheCDAisfaciallyoverbroad
becauseitsubstantiallyinterfereswiththeFirstAmendmentrightsofminors.Ante,at878.I
wouldrejectit.Ginsbergestablishedthatminorsmayconstitutionallybedeniedaccessto
materialthatisobsceneastominors.AsGinsbergexplained,materialisobsceneasto
minorsifit(i)is"patentlyoffensivetoprevailingstandardsintheadultcommunityasa
wholewithrespecttowhatissuitable...forminors"(ii)appealstotheprurientinterestof
minorsand(iii)is"utterlywithoutredeemingsocialimportanceforminors."390U.S.,at
633.BecausetheCDAdeniesminorstherighttoobtainmaterialthatis"patentlyoffensive"
evenifithassomeredeemingvalueforminorsandevenifitdoesnotappealtotheirpruri
56/61
7/18/2015
896
entinterestsCongress'rejectionoftheGinsberg"harmfultominors"standardmeansthat
theCDAcouldbansomespeechthatis"indecent"(i.e.,"patentlyoffensive")butthatisnot
obsceneastominors.
Idonotdenythispossibility,buttoprevailinafacialchallenge,itisnotenoughforaplaintiff
toshow"some"overbreadth.Ourcasesrequireaproofof"real"and"substantial"
overbreadth,Broadrickv.Oklahoma,413U.S.601,615(1973),andappelleeshavenot
carriedtheirburdeninthiscase.Inmyview,theuniverseofspeechconstitutionally
protectedastominorsbutbannedbytheCDAi.e.,theuniverseofmaterialthatis"patently
offensive,"butwhichnonethelesshassomeredeemingvalueforminorsordoesnotappeal
totheirprurientinterestisaverysmallone.Appelleescitenoexamplesofspeechfalling
withinthisuniverseanddonotattempttoexplainwhythatuniverseissubstantial"inrelation
tothestatute'splainlylegitimatesweep."Ibid.ThattheCDAmightdenyminorstherightto
obtainmaterialthathassome"value,"seeante,at878,islargelybesidethepoint.While
discussionsaboutprisonrapeornudeart,seeibid.,mayhavesomeredeemingeducational
valueforadults,theydonotnecessarilyhaveanysuchvalueforminors,andunder
Ginsberg,minorsonlyhaveaFirstAmendmentrighttoobtainpatentlyoffensivematerial
thathas"redeemingsocialimportanceforminors,"390U.S.,at633(emphasisadded).
Thereisalsonoevidenceintherecordtosupportthecontentionthat"manyemail
transmissionsfromanadulttoaminorareconversationsbetweenfamilymembers,"ante,at
865,n.32,andnosupportforthelegalpropositionthatsuchspeechisabsolutelyimmune
fromregulation.Accordingly,inmyview,theCDAdoesnotburdenasubstantialamountof
minors'constitutionallyprotectedspeech.
Thus,theconstitutionalityoftheCDAasazoninglawhingesontheextenttowhichit
substantiallyinterfereswiththeFirstAmendmentrightsofadults.Becausetherights
57/61
7/18/2015
897
ofadultsareinfringedonlybythe"display"provisionandbythe"indecencytransmission"
and"specificperson"provisionsasappliedtocommunicationsinvolvingmorethanone
adult,IwouldinvalidatetheCDAonlytothatextent.Insofarasthe"indecencytransmission"
and"specificperson"provisionsprohibittheuseofindecentspeechincommunications
betweenanadultandoneormoreminors,however,theycanandshouldbesustained.The
Courtreachesacontraryconclusion,andfromthatholdingIrespectfullydissent.
Disclaimer:OfficialSupremeCourtcaselawisonlyfoundintheprintversionoftheUnited
StatesReports.Justiacaselawisprovidedforgeneralinformationalpurposesonly,and
maynotreflectcurrentlegaldevelopments,verdictsorsettlements.Wemakenowarranties
orguaranteesabouttheaccuracy,completeness,oradequacyoftheinformationcontained
onthissiteorinformationlinkedtofromthissite.Pleasecheckofficialsources.
Contributors
ChrisSkelton
MountainView,CA
Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion
PrimaryHolding
AlawmayviolatetheFirstAmendmentifitissooverlybroadthatitcurtailsprotectedas
58/61
7/18/2015
wellas...
Facts
ThefederalgovernmentenactedtheCommunicationsDecencyActtopreventchildrenfrom
gainingacces...
Readthefullannotationsforthiscase.
SearchthisCase
GoogleScholar
GoogleBooks
LegalBlogs
GoogleWeb
BingWeb
GoogleNews
GoogleNewsArchive
Yahoo!News
FindaLawyer
LegalIssueorLawyerName
City,State
Search
LawyersGetListedNow!
Getafreedirectoryprofilelisting
AskaLawyer
Question:
59/61
7/18/2015
Pleaseaskyourquestionhere.E.g.,DoIneedabankruptcylawyer?
Adddetails
120
AskQuestion
SubscribetoJustia'sFreeSummariesofU.S.SupremeCourt.
SUBSCRIBENOW
JustiaLegalResources
FINDALAWYER
INDIVIDUALS
BUSINESS
LAWSTUDENTS
USFEDERALLAW
USSTATELAW
OTHERDATABASES
LEGALMARKETING
60/61
7/18/2015
2015Justia
Company
TermsofService
PrivacyPolicy
ContactUs
61/61

Reno V ACLU

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Reno V ACLU

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

7/18/2015

Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume521

Вам также может понравиться