S223(a) and 223(d) of the Communications Decency Act were challenged. S. 223(b) prohibits knowingly transmitting an obscene or indecent message or image to a person the sender knows is under 18 years old. "Zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech.
S223(a) and 223(d) of the Communications Decency Act were challenged. S. 223(b) prohibits knowingly transmitting an obscene or indecent message or image to a person the sender knows is under 18 years old. "Zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
S223(a) and 223(d) of the Communications Decency Act were challenged. S. 223(b) prohibits knowingly transmitting an obscene or indecent message or image to a person the sender knows is under 18 years old. "Zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et.al June 26, 1997 Supreme Court of the United States
Norfadhilah Mohd Ali
• Feb 8, 1996, immediately after the President signed the CDA, 20 plaintiffs filed suit against AG of USA challenging the constitutionality of s223 (a) and 223(d) • Judges comment: • The provisions sweeps more broadly than necessary because of the vague terms • Defenses were not technologically and economically feasible to users • Should be applied only to commercial pornographers • It is not defined to exclude work of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The Government’s argument • Ginsberg v. New York – prohibit selling to minors under 17 yr material that was considered obscene • Pacifica – an afternoon broadcast of a recording of a 12 minute monologue entitled filthy words to live audience. • Renton – zoning ordinance that kept adult movie theatres out of residential neighborhoods. • Challenges against the Communications Decency Act 1996 (an attempt to create “adult zones” in the internet. • The challenges: • -it is a crime to knowingly transmit an obscene or indecent message or image to a person the sender knows is under 18 years old • -It criminalizes the display of patently offensive messages or images on any manner available to minors • Case laws made it clear that “zoning” law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech – First Amendment • Affirmative defenses are provided for those who take “good faith,…effective…actions: to restrict access to minors to the prohibited communications, or those who restrict access by requiring certain info – credit card or adult identification number. Description of internet by the court • The history of internet. • Has a wide variety of communication and information retrieval methods: transmission of data and retrieve of information – navigating the Web • Cyberspace allows speakers and listeners to mask their identities. • It is impossible to exclude persons from accessing certain messages on the basis of their identity. • Now there is a move zone cyberspace through the use of ‘gateway’ technology. – internet users enter information about themselves. Using screening soft wares but it is not available to all Web speakers. Sexually explicit material • It can be light or heavy – from modestly titillating to the hardest core. • Once a provider posts its content on the internet, it cannot prevent the content from entering any community. • Although such material is widely available, users seldom encounter such content accidnetally. Thus odds are slim that a user would enter a sexually explicit site by accident. • Unlike the radio or television, the recepit of information on the internet requires a series of affirmative steps. • Although the eventual zoning is promising but the court has evaluate the constitutionality of CDA as it applies to the Internet as it exists today. • The CDA is therefore akin to a law that makes it a crime for a bookstore owner to sell pornographic magazines to anyone once a minor enters his store. Held: • CDA is vague – undefined terms : “indecent” and “patently offensive” – how to measure them? Miller v California:specifically defined by applicable state law. CDA seems to extend to “excretory activities” and “organs” • What if the messages are with artistic or educational value? • The CDA abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment