Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 96-511, Reno versus American Civil Liberty Union will be announced by Justice Stevens.
Argument of Justice Stevens
Mr. Stevens: This case comes to us by way of appeal from a three-judge District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which held a federal statute unconstitutional.
The statute is the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which reported to preclude indecent and sexually offensive material off of the internet to the extent that they would be available to minors.
While we do not question in the slightest the legitimacy and importance of the interest in protecting minors from harmful materials of this kind, after a rather elaborate study of this extensive piece of legislation, we have concluded that both of the challenged provisions are unconstitutional.
We explain our reasoning in an opinion that occupies some 40 pages and I will not try to summarize it.
I will merely point out that one of the contentions that the government advanced at the start of the litigation, they suggested that the legislation was necessary in order to preserve the growth the internet because so many people might hesitate to use it running the risk of encountering this kind of material.
Now we find that argument particularly unpersuasive because the phenomenal growth of the internet seems to indicate that government regulation is not necessary in order to foster rapid growth of a new communications medium such as this in theoretical experience with this particular medium indicates that perhaps a lack of regulation may have done more to foster growth of the medium than the regulation itself might have.
As with respect to a good part of our holding, we are unanimous on the judgment although Justice O’Connor has filed an opinion joined by the Chief Justice which concurs in the judgment in part but dissents with respect to one aspect of the statute.
