458renovaclu - Reno v ACLU 1997 I. The Facts:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Reno v ACLU 1997 I. The Facts: Communications Decency Act (CDA), or Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has two provisions: the 1) indecent transmission provision and 2) patently offensive display provision. The first prohibits the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient less than 18 years of age. The second prohibits the knowing sending or displaying of patently offensive messages in a manner that is available to a person under 18 years of age. After the statute was made official, a suit was filed against the US Attorney General and the Justice Department to challenge the constitutionality of these provisions. A three- judge District Court was convened and entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both provisions, holding that the provisions violated First Amendment protections of free speech. However, the court did preserve the Governments right to protections of free speech....
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

458renovaclu - Reno v ACLU 1997 I. The Facts:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online