Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)

Reno v. ACLU was the Supreme Court’s first major ruling on internet speech, establishing that the internet deserves the highest level of First Amendment protection. The unanimous decision struck down key anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act while upholding Section 230.

Legal Background

Constitutional Challenge: The ACLU and other organizations challenged two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that criminalized the transmission of “obscene or indecent” materials to minors online.

Lower Court Ruling: A three-judge federal panel had already blocked enforcement of the provisions, finding them unconstitutional.

Key Provisions

The Court’s ruling established several foundational principles:

Highest First Amendment Protection: The internet receives the same level of First Amendment protection as books and newspapers, not the reduced protection given to broadcast media.

Content-Based Restrictions: Government regulations targeting the content of online speech must meet strict scrutiny review.

Vague and Overbroad: Laws restricting online speech cannot be vague or sweep too broadly, potentially chilling protected adult speech.

Impact on Digital Platforms

Reno v. ACLU shaped online discourse by:

• Establishing that government cannot broadly regulate online content based on indecency standards
• Protecting platforms and users from government censorship of adult content
• Creating precedent that the internet is a unique medium deserving special First Amendment consideration
• Allowing Section 230 to remain in effect while striking down other CDA provisions
• Setting the foundation for subsequent internet free speech cases

Legal Challenges and Evolution

Immediate Impact: The ruling immediately blocked government enforcement of the indecency provisions while preserving Section 230’s platform protections.

Subsequent Cases: The decision became foundational precedent for later cases involving online speech regulation, including challenges to state laws restricting social media platforms.

Legislative Response: Congress did not attempt to rewrite the struck-down provisions, instead focusing on more targeted approaches like COPA (later also struck down).

Digital Politics Implications

The ruling affects digital political organizing by:

• Protecting robust political debate online from government content regulation
• Ensuring platforms can host controversial political speech without government interference
• Establishing that online political speech receives maximum constitutional protection
• Creating precedent against government attempts to regulate platform content policies
• Enabling the growth of diverse online political communities and movements

Reno v. ACLU remains the cornerstone case for internet free speech, providing the constitutional foundation that enabled the internet to become a primary venue for political discourse and organizing.