Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union

This paper presents the court case Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union. The role, issues, and impacts (policy, students, clients, learning, and/or services) are presented.

Congress determined that due to the Internet, minors were able to access unsuitable material. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDC or ôthe Actö) protects minors from material on the Internet that may be harmful obscene or indecent messages may not be sent to any person under 18 years of age. Proof of age is needed to ensure compliance with this Act. Many plaintiffs (organizations and individuals who are associated with the computer and/or communications industries, or who publish/post materials on the Internet, or who belong to citizen groups) have filed suit against this Act with the challenge that it is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argue against this action, arguing that it is facially invalid under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Against the Government (Reno), of the plaintiffs who have filed against the Act (Civil Action Number 96-963), the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) filed their action on the day the Act was signed, moving for a temporary restraining order regarding two provisions of the CDC. These two provisions referred to communications over the Internet which might be deemed "indecent" or "patently offensive" for minors; it was argued that this infringed upon rights protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause

. . .
adily susceptible" to this construction. The court may not rewrite a law to conform it to constitutional requirements or to create distinctions where none were intended; language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. Thus the court may not alter the Act and it is clear from the face of the CDA that Congress did not limit its application to commercial purveyors of pornography. Further, Congress did not include language that would define "patently offensive" or "indecent" to exclude material of serious value. When dealing with the issue of a vague law, there is a history involving older cases which have concluded that if a statute has vague terms that require men of common intelligence to guess at its meaning and application, this violates the first essential of due process of law. All involved are entitled to be informed as to what the statute commands or forbids and laws must provide precise standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. It has also been stipulated that when the First Amendment is implicated, an even stricter standard of examination for vagueness is imperative. In this case, these stricter standards need to be applied since the Act has a potentially inhibiting effect on speech. The Ac
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Fifth Amendment, CDA Congress, Patrick Atkinson, Amendment CDA, According Act, Supreme Court, Decency Act, Field Experience, Guatemala Findings, Antigua Guatemala, due process, patently offensive, complete ban, civil liberties, american civil, civil liberties union, american civil liberties, liberties union, learning service-learning accelerated, constitutionally protected, commercial pornographers, on-line accelerated courses, service trip, protected speech, distance learning service-learning,
Approximate Word count = 1701
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)