紹介
新しいプレゼンアシスタント。
これまで以上に短時間で、コンテンツをの質を上げ、強化、調整し、関連する画像を入手し、ビジュアルを編集できるようになりました。
トレンド検索
Who was involved?
The ACLU argues for the court to rule the Communications Decency Act (COPA) of 1996 unconstitutional claiming that it was a violation of first and fifth amendments rights.
The district court comes to a ruling keeping the government from enforcing the challenged provisions of the CDA claiming that in such an uncontrollable medium, it would be a violation of the first amendment to try to censor speech on the internet. After this ruling, Reno immediately appeals the case to the supreme court and has to convince the court to take on the case due to the many constitutional issues that were involved. Reno argues on behalf of the federal government for there to be a limit on adult publications on the internet.
The Vote
Rehnquist- Dissent
Stevens- Majority
O'Connor- Dissent
Scalia- Majority
Kennedy- Majority
Souter- Majority
Thomas- Majority
Ginsburg- Majority
Breyer- Majority
-This was the first case to deal with regulation
of the Internet and its publications.
-The case is used as a precedent for other cases involving the media and first amendment rights.
-Granted the Internet full protection under the first amendment.
-Gave the Internet different provisions than other media such as television and the radio.
The ACLU argued that it was a
violation of first amendment
rights to try to censor internet
publications.
Attempt by Congress to limit "obscene or indecent" material on the internet. It made it a criminal offense to send any messages through the internet depicting sexual activity deemed offensive to a minor under the age of eighteen. It was an attempt to regulate obscenity available to minors in cyberspace.
The Supreme court upheld the ruling of the district court, siding with the ACLU. The majority vote decided that the two provisions defined in the CDA were unconstitutional, and the act would not be enforced due to the violation of the first amendment. The Internet is entitled to full first amendment rights. Internet publications could not be censored to protect children from indecency or obscenity due to the vagueness of what could be defined as indecent or obscene and for what age. The dissenting vote was not fully in favor of the CDA but was in favor of creating some sort of way to block minors from certain sites on the Internet.