 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SYLLABUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MATERIALS CDA FIRST AMENDMENT COMMUNICATIONS SPEECH UNITED STATES RESTRICT PROHIBITIONS REQUIRING GOVERNMENT DISTRICT COURT PROTECTING INTERNET CONSTITUTIONALITY OPINION PROVISIONS OBSCENITY SYLLABUS ADULT VAGUENESS PARENTS REGULATION VAGUE FCC BROADCASTING BASIS FINDINGS ENFORCEMENT JUDGEMENT |
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. On appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 96 511. Argued March 19, 1997 Decided June 26, 1997 Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA or Act) seek to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet, an international network of interconnected computers that enables millions of people to communicate with one another in "cyberspace" and to access vast amounts of information from around the world. Title 47 U. S. C. A. 223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) prohibits the "knowin[g]" sending or displaying to a person under 18 of any message "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Affirmative defenses are provided for those who take "good faith, . . . effective . . . actions" to restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications, 223(e)(5)(A), and those who restrict such access by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an adult identification number, 223(e)(5)(B). A number of plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of 223(a)(1) and 223(d). After makingSNIPPETS: |
|
2
.
ORALARGUMENTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ENNIS JUSTICE COURT SPEECH CHIEF JUSTICE WEB SITES INDECENT SPEECH ADULT STATUTE MATERIALS PARENTS UNITED STATES INTERNET PROVISION GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS CONSTITUTIONALITY DISPLAY PROVISION EFFECTIVENESS SUPREME COURT CREDIT CARD DISTRICT COURT JUSTICE SCALIA APPELLANTS APPELLEES TECHNOLOGY UNCONSTITUTIONALITY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WASHINGTON |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Appellants v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ET AL. No. 96-511 Wednesday, March 19, 1997 The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 10:06 a.m. APPEARANCES: SETH P. WAXMAN, ESQ., Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Appellants. BRUCE J. ENNIS, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Appellees. P R O C E E D I N G S CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument next in Number 96-511, Janet Reno v. The American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Ennis, I would like to tell both of you before you start your argument that each counsel will be allowed 35 minutes instead of the usual 30 in this case. You may proceed. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SETH P. WAXMAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS MR. WAXMAN: Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:SNIPPETS: |
|
3
.
ACLU BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT INTERNET SPEECH COMMUNICATIONS PLAINTIFFS STRICT SCRUTINY DEFENSES BAN UNCONSTITUTIONALITY PROTECTED SPEECH GOVERNMENT SPEAKERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ONLINE STATUTORY DEFENSES INEFFECTIVENESS TRIAL COURT VERIFICATION CENSORSHIP SCHEME AGE VERIFICATION CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT NEWSGROUPS PROVISIONS MAIL EXPLODERS CREDIT CARD AVAILABILITY COMMERCIAL ONLINE SERVICES |
No No. 96-511 In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1996 ---------------------------------------- Janet Reno, Appellant, v. American Civil Liberties Union, et. al, Appellees. ---------------------------------------- On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Brief of Appellees ---------------------------------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES [as appendix] INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The Statutory Framework B. The Reach Of The CDA: Plaintiffs And Their SpeechSNIPPETS: |
|
4
.
AMICUSREPORTERSCOMMFOR FREEDOMOFPRESS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT NEWS INTERNET JOURNALISTS SPEECH AMICI INDECENT REPORTERS COMMITTEE RENO FREEDOM STUDENT PRESS LAW STORIES VIRGINIA DISSEMINATION MATERIALS GOVERNMENT FCC FIRST AMENDMENT FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION UNITED STATES WILSON BLVD AMICI CURIAE REPORTING STORIES NEWSWORTHY COMMUNICATIONS NEWS ORGANIZATION ENFORCEMENT PRIOR RESTRAINT ADVERSE IMPACT |
NO. 96-511
IN THE
OCTOBER TERM, 1996
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS,
V.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIEF OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE
FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE
STUDENT PRESS LAW CENTER AS
AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLEES
Jane E. Kirtley
Counsel of Record for Amici Curiae
Barbara Lerner
Leslie Ann Reis
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1910
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 807-2100
S. Mark Goodman
Student Press Law Center
1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1910
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Of Counsel
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
AMICUSAPPOLLOMEDIA
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT CDA COMMUNICATIONS UNITED STATES INDECENT POWER MILLER ORDINARY CITIZENS COMPUTERS CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT RENO BAY AREA LAWYERS STATUTE SPEECH RESTRICTIONS VAGUE INTERSTATE COMMERCE INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY STANDARDS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY APOLLOMEDIA CORPORATION INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM REGULATING REGULATION CDA EXEMPTS INTRASTATE BORROW ONE-THIRD DECENCY ACT FIRST AMENDMENT FCC |
No. 96-511
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term 1996
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
On appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
BRIEF OF APOLLOMEDIA CORPORATION AND BAY AREA LAWYERS
FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, AS AMICI CURIAE,
IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
William Bennett Turner
Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn
311 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 956-2828
Facsimile: (415) 956-6457
Attorneys for amici curiae
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTEREST OF THE AMICI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
I. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
DOES NOT CONFER ON IT A "COMPELLING" INTEREST IN REGULATING
"INDECENT" SPEECH BY ORDINARY CITIZENS USING COMPUTERS
II. BECAUSE THE CDA EXEMPTS INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS AND IS NOT
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMMUNICATION MATERIALS DISTRICT COURT STATUTE CONSTITUTIONALITY MINORS PROVISIONS SUPP UNITED STATES CDA GOVERNMENT AMERICAN SPEECH ADULT FIRST AMENDMENT HARMFUL MATERIALS APPELLANTS AGE VERIFICATION STATUTORY PROVISIONS SEXUALLY EXPLICIT REGULATION CREDIT CARD PROHIBITIONS CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY STANDARDS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IMPORTANCE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., APPELLANTS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. APPELLEES No. 96 511 On appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [June 26, 1997] Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive" communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment.[1] I The District Court made extensive findings of fact, most of which were based on a detailed stipulation prepared by the parties. See 929 F. Supp. 824, 830 849 (ED Pa. 1996).[2] The findings describe the character and the dimensions of the Internet, the availability of sexually explicit material in that medium, and the problems confronting age verification for recipients of Internet communications. Because those findings provide the underpinnings for the legal issues, we begin with a summary of the undisputed facts. The Internet The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers. It is the outgrowth of what began in 1969 as a military program calledSNIPPETS: |
|
7
.
DISSENTING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CDA COURT CONSTITUTIONALITY MINORS INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS ADULTS UNITED STATES CODE ANN STAT SPEECH LAW APPELLEES ZONE SUPP CYBERSPACE INDECENT FIRST AMENDMENT CONGRESS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES INDECENT MESSAGE ZONING LAWS GINSBERG CHAT ROOMS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 96 511
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES, et al.,
APPELLANTS
v.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et
al.
APPELLEES
On appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
June 26, 1997
Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice joins,
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
I write separately to explain why I view the Communications Decency Act of
1996 (CDA) as little more than an attempt by Congress to create "adult
zones" on the Internet. Our precedent indicates that the creation of such
zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite the soundness of its purpose,
however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the
blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a "zoning
law" that passes constitutional muster.
Appellees bring a facial challenge to three provisions of the CDA. The
first, which the Court describes as the "indecency transmission"
provision, makes it a crime to knowingly transmit an obscene or indecent
message or image to a person the sender knows is under 18 years old. 47 U. S.
C. A. 223(a)(1)(B) (May 1996 Supp.). What the Court classifies as a single
"'patently offensive display'" provision, see ante, at 11, is
in reality two separate provisions. The first of these makes it a crime to
knowingly send a patently offensive message or image to a specific person under
the age of 18 ("specific person" provision). 223(d)(1)(A). The
second criminalizes the display of patently offensive messages or images
"in a[ny] manner available" to minors ("display"
provision). 223(d)(1)(B). None of these provisions purports to keep indecent
(or patently offensive) material away from adults, who have a First Amendment
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
LIBRARYASSOC BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COURT INTERNET COMMUNICATION SPEECH GOVERNMENT CDA UNITED STATES INDECENT APP MATERIALS APPELLEES ADULTS MINORS CONGRESS AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALITY PROVISIONS TECHNOLOGY FIRST AMENDMENT NEWSGROUPS MAJOR ONLINE SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS DENVER AREA STRICT SCRUTINY PROHIBITION CHAT ROOMS SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CRIMINAL PROHIBITION FCC |
CIEC | Supreme Court Brief - February 20, 1997 CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION Supreme Court Brief ---------------------------------------- No. 96-511 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1996 ________________________ JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Appellees. ____________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania _____________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEES AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, et al. _____________________ BRUCE J. ENNIS, JR.*SNIPPETS: |
|
9
.
Government Exhibit # 3RDCIRCUITOPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INTERNET PLAINTIFFS COURT UNITED STATES PROVISIONS CDA NETWORKS WEB SITE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MATERIALS CHIEF JUDGE ACT MOTIONS ONLINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT NEWSGROUPS CONSTITUTIONALITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS CREDIT CARD GOVERNMENT MAILING LISTS CREDIT CARD VERIFICATION CIVIL LIBERTIES SUBSCRIBERS COMMERCIAL ONLINE SERVICES THIRD CIRCUIT CYBER PATROL AMERICA ONLINE CRITICAL PATH |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN
: :JANET RENO, Attorney General of : the United States : No.
IBRARY ASSOCIATION, : CIVIL ACTION INC., et al., : : v. : :UNITED STATES DEP'T OF JUSTICE, : et al.
nbsp; Before: Sloviter, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit;
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania June 11,
TION
I.
INTRODUCTION
Procedural Background
Before us are motions for a preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs who
challenge on constitutional grounds provisions of the Communications Decency
Act of 1996 (CDA or "the Act"), which constitutes Title V of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, signed into law by the President on February 8, 1996.[1]
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 502, 110 Stat. 56, 133-35.
Plaintiffs include various organizations and individuals who, inter alia, are
associated with the computer and/or communications industries, or who publish
or post materials on the Internet, or belong to various citizen groups. See
ACLU Complaint ( 7-26), ALA First Amended Complaint ( 3, 12-33).
The defendants in these actions are Janet Reno, the Attorney General of the
United States, and the United States Department of Justice. For convenience, we
will refer to these defendants as the Government. Plaintiffs contend that the
two challenged provisions of the CDA that are directed to communications over
the Internet which might be deemed "indecent" or "patently
offensive" for minors, defined as persons under the age of eighteen,
infringe upon rights protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs in Civil Action Number 96-963, in which the lead plaintiff is the
American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU),[2]
filed their action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on the day the Act was signed, and moved for a temporary
restraining order to enjoin enforcement of these two provisions of the CDA. On
February 15, 1996, following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Ronald L.
Buckwalter, to whom the case had been assigned, granted a limited temporary
restraining order, finding in a Memorandum that 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(B)
("the indecency provision" of the CDA) was unconstitutionally vague.
On the same day, Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, Chief Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, having been requested by the
parties and the district court to convene a three-judge court, pursuant to
561(a) of the CDA, appointed such a court consisting of, in addition to Judge
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
Government Exhibit # 3RDCIRCUIT INJUNCTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT CIVIL ACTIONET REVIEW JANET RENO PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS INJUNCTION PARTIES ENFORCING PROSECUTING INVESTIGATING TEMPLE NBSP PURSUANT CIV BOND CIR CERT DENIED SUB NOM SNIDER WRITING APPELLATE REVIEW DOLORES SLOVITER APPEALS RONALD BUCKWALTER STEWART DALZELL |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN
:JANET RENO, Attorney General of :the United States : NO.
IBRARY ASSOC., : CIVIL ACTIONINC., et al. : : v. : :UNITED STATES DEP'T OF :JUSTICE, et al. : NO.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
11th day of June, 1996, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions for
preliminary injunction, and the memoranda of the parties and amici curiae in
support and opposition thereto, and after hearing, and upon the findings of
fact and conclusions of law set forth in the accompanying Adjudication, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motions are GRANTED;
2. Defendant Attorney General
Janet Reno, and all acting under her direction and control, are PRELIMINARILY
ENJOINED from enforcing, prosecuting, investigating or reviewing any matter
premised upon:
(a) Sections 223(a)(1)(B) and
223(a)(2) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"), Pub.
L. No. 104-104, 502, 110 Stat. 133, 133-36, to the extent such enforcement,
prosecution, investigation, or review are based upon allegations other than
obscenity or child pornography; and
(b) Sections 223(d)(1) and
223(d)(2) of the CDA;
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(c), plaintiffs need not post a bond for this injunction, see Temple Univ. v.
White, 941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Snider v. Temple
Univ., 502 U.S. 1032 (1992); and
4. The parties shall advise the
Court, in writing, as to their views regarding the need for further proceedings
on the later of (a) thirty days from the date of this Order, or (b) ten days
after final appellate review of this Order.
BY THE COURT: ______________________________ Dolores K. Sloviter, C.J. U.S.
__________________________ Ronald L. Buckwalter, J. ______________________________
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
