Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 3
  • Relationships: 5
  • Research debt items: 2
  • Last verified: 2026-06-19

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

Summary

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.

Verified Facts

  • The case citation is 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
  • The Supreme Court decided the case on June 26, 1997, in docket No. 96-511.
  • The case concerned two Communications Decency Act of 1996 provisions aimed at protecting minors from harmful material on the Internet.
  • The official syllabus states that the CDA's "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment.
  • Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
  • The District Court had entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the challenged provisions after extensive findings of fact.
  • The Court affirmed the judgment without reaching the Fifth Amendment vagueness issue, while noting that vagueness was relevant to the First Amendment overbreadth inquiry.
  • The opinion states that the CDA differs in material ways from broadcast-era precedents such as Ginsberg, Pacifica, and Renton that the Government relied upon.

Historical Context

The case arose from a challenge to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a statute enacted as part of broader telecommunications legislation. The government appealed a three-judge district court injunction under the Act's special review provisions.

The Court treated the challenged CDA provisions as content-based restrictions on Internet speech and concluded they were overbroad relative to the Government's stated goal of protecting minors. The syllabus and opinion distinguish the Internet from the broadcast context used in several precedents the Government cited. OIR has not yet summarized later treatment of Internet speech doctrine or related statutory amendments on this page.

Relationships

Sources

Research Debt

  • Add later treatment and related internet speech cases with primary sources.
  • Clarify how this case relates to software-publication and code-as-speech doctrine separately from Internet content regulation.