Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
Reno v. ACLU was the Supreme Court’s first ruling addressing internet speech, establishing that the internet is subject to the highest level of First Amendment protection. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by six justices; Justice O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, agreeing that the provisions were unconstitutional in most of their applications and parting company only on whether the statute could validly reach a sender who knew the recipient was a minor. The Court struck down the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 223(a)(1)(B) and 223(d). Section 230, a separate section of the same Act, was not challenged in the case and remained in force.
Legal Background
Constitutional Challenge: The ACLU and other organizations challenged two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that criminalized the transmission of “indecent” and “patently offensive” material to minors online.
Lower Court Ruling: A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, convened under the Act’s special review provisions, made extensive findings of fact and entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both challenged provisions. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Key Provisions
The Court’s ruling established several key principles:
Highest First Amendment Protection: The internet is subject to 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 criminal enforcement actions targeting adult content
- Creating precedent that the internet is a unique medium subject to the highest level of First Amendment protection
- Leaving Section 230, a separate and unchallenged section of the same Act, in effect
- Supplying language the Court has quoted in later internet speech cases, including Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), which cited Reno at 521 U.S. 870 for the internet’s “relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds”
Legal Challenges and Evolution
Immediate Impact: The ruling blocked government enforcement of the indecency provisions. Section 230, which was not at issue in the case, continued in effect.
Subsequent Cases: Later Supreme Court decisions on internet speech cite Reno. Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) applied it in reviewing the Child Online Protection Act, and Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) quoted Reno’s description of the internet’s capacity for communication. Moody v. NetChoice (2024), the challenge to Florida and Texas social media laws, opens by citing Reno for its description of the internet, though it does not rest its analysis on Reno’s holding.
Legislative Response: Rather than rewrite the struck-down provisions, Congress passed the narrower Child Online Protection Act in 1998. In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) the Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction against that statute, which was later permanently enjoined and never took effect.
Digital Politics Implications
The ruling affects digital political organizing by:
- Protecting political debate online from government content regulation
- Limiting government regulation of the content of political speech online
- Applying the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny to online speech rather than the reduced scrutiny used for broadcast media
- Creating precedent against government regulation of platform content policies based on indecency standards
- Extending to online political speech the same First Amendment protection that applies to speech in print
Reno v. ACLU established the constitutional standard applied to government regulation of online speech, holding that internet content receives the same First Amendment protections as print media rather than the reduced protections applied to broadcast.
Sources
- 01.
Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress). Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844. (1997). Bound U.S. Reports text. Source for the June 26, 1997 decision date, the lineup (Stevens, J., joined by six justices; O'Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part), the holding that 47 U.S.C. 223(a) and 223(d) abridge the freedom of speech, the refusal to apply the reduced scrutiny used for broadcast, and the severability discussion, which turns on section 608 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-104), an uncodified segregability clause covering the whole Act rather than a codified section of Title 47.
- 02.
U.S. Government Publishing Office. 47 U.S.C. § 223 — Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications. The provisions at issue, added to the Communications Act by Pub. L. 104-104, title V, § 502 (Feb. 8, 1996).
- 03.
Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress). Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656. (2004). Source for the fate of the Child Online Protection Act, the narrower statute Congress passed after Reno, and for a later Supreme Court decision applying Reno.
- 04.
Supreme Court of the United States. Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98. (2017). Slip opinion, No. 15-1194, decided June 19, 2017. Quotes Reno, 521 U.S. at 870, for the internet's 'relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds.'
- 05.
Supreme Court of the United States. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (decided together with NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 22-555). (2024). Slip opinion, decided July 1, 2024. Opens by citing Reno, 521 U.S. at 849-850, for its description of the internet; the analysis of the Florida and Texas social media laws does not rest on Reno's holding.