Apresentando
Seu novo assistente de apresentação.
Refine, aprimore e adapte seu conteúdo, obtenha imagens relevantes e edite recursos visuais com mais rapidez do que nunca.
Buscar populares
Janet Reno who represented the Attorney General of the United States at the time
That the CDA should be used to regulate pornographic material or "indecent" communications" on the internet
The Communications Decency Act was passed by Congress in 1996. It attempted to impact the Internet in two important ways: first, it sought to regulate both "obscenity" in cyberspace, especially in regard to its availability to children.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Legal: Is pornography consider indecent? If so, under what circumstances?
Public Policy: Should the discussion of whats seems to indecent be legal? Why or why not?
Values in Conflict: Which value is more important, a persons freedom of speech or a child's exposure to the speech? Why?
Practical: What are the options open to a child who is exposed to this content?
That the CDA change in regulation violated the First Amendment
I agreed with the plaintiff because there are several problems with the Communications Decency Act : It did not define “indecent,“ it did not allow parents to authorize their children to access restricted materials, it applied “to the entire universe of cyberspace“ rather than to well-defined areas. Moreover, the Internet is not a “scarce“ commodity like the airwaves, so there is less justification for governmental regulation. Finally, the regulated materials do not just appear on the computer screen, but must be actively sought out.
1) The provisions of this Act are vague and contain a "context" for interpretation
2) The options suggested by the Reno are not persuasive.
3) These provisions are held to abridge free speech protected by the First Amendment. By suppressing the activities intended in these provisions, the rights of adults to exercise their freedom of such speech are violated.
4) The language in these provisions is vague. "Indecent" and "patently offensive" cover large parts of non pornographic material with serious educational or other value.
5) The Communications Decency Act provisions lack the precision required by the First Amendment when a statute regulates the content of speech.
Did certain provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violate the First Amendment (freedom of speech) by being vague in their definitions of the types of internet communications which they criminalized?
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was a supreme court case involving the freedom of speech and protection to minors from unwanted content on the internet. The Supreme Court had found the Communications Decency Act (Reno) unconstitutional and resulting in ACLU winning the case.
The Court and its majority opinion held that the Act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The Act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the Act could be saved if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text.