reno v. aclu : 521 u s 844

521 U.S. 844117 S.Ct. 2329 138 L.Ed.2d 87 4

Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States, et al.,Appellants

v .AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.

No. 96-511.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 19, 1997.

Decided June 26, 1997.

Syllabus *

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 making

extensive findings of fact, a three-judge District Court convened pursuant to

the Act entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both

challenged provisions. The court's judgment enjoins the Government from

enforcing §223(a)(1)(B)'s prohibitions insofar as they relate to "indecent''

communications, but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate

and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited therein.

The injunction against enforcement of §223(d) is unqualified because that

section contains no separate reference to obscenity or child pornography. The

Government appealed to this Court under the Act's special review provisions,

arguing that the District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the

First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it

is vague.

Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission'' and "patently offensive display''

provisions abridge "the freedom of speech'' protected by the First Amendment.

Pp. ____-____.

(a) Although the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the First Amendment

overbreadth inquiry, the judgment should be affirmed without reaching the

Fifth Amendment issue. P. 2341.

(b) A c lose look at the precedents relied on by the Government-Ginsberg v.

« up

521 U.S. 844 http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/521/521.US...

1 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

New York, 390 U.S . 629, 88 S .Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195; FCC v. Pacifica

Foundation, 438 U.S . 726, 98 S .Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073; and Renton v.

Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S . 41, 106 S .Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29-raises, rather

than relieves, doubts about the CDA's constitutionality. The CDA differs from

the various laws and orders upheld in those cases in many ways, including that

it does not allow parents to consent to their children's use of restricted

materials; is not limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any

definition of "indecent'' and omits any requirement that "patently offensive''

material lack socially redeeming value; neither limits its broad categorical

prohibitions to particular times nor bases them on an evaluation by an agency

familiar with the medium's unique characteristics; is punitive; applies to a

medium that, unlike radio, receives full First Amendment protection; and

cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation

because it is a content-based blanket restriction on speech. These precedents,

then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and are fully consistent with

the application of the most stringent review of its provisions. Pp. ____-____.

(c) The special factors recognized in some of the Court's cases as justifying

regulation of the broadcast media-the history of extensive government

regulation of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S .

367, 399-400, 89 S .Ct. 1794, 1811-1812, 23 L.Ed.2d 371; the scarcity of

available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System,

Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S . 622, 637-638, 114 S .Ct. 2445, 2456-2457, 129 L.Ed.2d 497;

and its "invasive'' nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492

U.S . 115, 128, 109 S .Ct. 2829, 2837-2838, 106 L.Ed.2d 93-are not present in

cyberspace. Thus, these cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First

Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet. Pp. ____-____.

(d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth

Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage

render it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For instance, its use of

the undefined terms "indecent'' and "patently offensive'' will provoke

uncertainty among speakers about how the two standards relate to each other

and just what they mean. The vagueness of such a content-based regulation,

see, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S . 1030, 111 S .Ct. 2720, 115

L.Ed.2d 888, coupled with its increased deterrent effect as a criminal statute,

see, e.g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S . 479, 85 S .Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22,

raise special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect

on free speech. Contrary to the Government's argument, the CDA is not saved

from vagueness by the fact that its "patently offensive'' standard repeats the

second part of the three-prong obscenity test set forth in Miller v. California,

413 U.S . 15, 24, 93 S .Ct. 2607, 2614-2615, 37 L.Ed.2d 419. The second Miller

prong reduces the inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive'' term by

requiring that the proscribed material be "specifically defined by the

applicable state law.'' In addition, the CDA applies only to "sexual conduct,''

whereas, the CDA prohibition extends also to "excretory activities'' and

"organs'' of both a sexual and excretory nature. Each of Miller's other two

prongs also critically limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition.

Just because a definition including three limitations is not vague, it does not

follow that one of those limitations, standing alone, is not vague. The CDA's

vagueness undermines the likelihood that it has been carefully tailored to the

congressional goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful materials. Pp.

____-____.

(e) The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a

statute regulates the content of speech. Although the Government has an

interest in protecting children from potentially harmful materials, see, e.g.,

Ginsberg, 390 U.S ., at 639, 88 S .Ct., at 1280, the CDA pursues that interest by

suppressing a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right

« up


2 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

to send and receive, see, e.g., Sable, supra, at 126, 109 S .Ct., at 2836-2837. Its

breadth is wholly unprecedented. The CDA's burden on adult speech is

unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in

achieving the Act's legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 U.S ., at 126, 109

S .Ct., at 2836-2837. The Government has not proved otherwise. On the other

hand, the District Court found that currently available user-based software

suggests that a reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent

their children from accessing material which the parents believe is

inappropriate will soon be widely available. Moreover, the arguments in this

Court referred to possible alternatives such as requiring that indecent

material be "tagged'' to facilitate parental control, making exceptions for

messages with artistic or educational value, providing some tolerance for

parental choice, and regulating some portions of the Internet differently than

others. Particularly in the light of the absence of any detailed congressional

findings, or even hearings addressing the CDA's special problems, the Court is

persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored. Pp. ____-____.

(f) The Government's three additional arguments for sustaining the CDA's

affirmative prohibitions are rejected. First, the contention that the Act is

constitutional because it leaves open ample "alternative channels'' of

communication is unpersuasive because the CDA regulates speech on the

basis of its content, so that a "time, place, and manner'' analysis is

inapplicable. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n

of N.Y., 447 U.S . 530, 536, 100 S .Ct. 2326, 2332-2333, 65 L.Ed.2d 319. Second,

the assertion that the CDA's "knowledge'' and "specific person'' requirements

significantly restrict its permissible application to communications to persons

the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given that most Internet forums

are open to all comers and that even the strongest reading of the "specific

person'' requirement would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a

"heckler's veto,'' upon any opponent of indecent speech. Finally, there is no

textual support for the submission that material having scientific , educational,

or other redeeming social value will necessarily fall outside the CDA's

prohibitions. Pp. ____-____.

(g) The §223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow tailoring'' that

would save the CDA. The Government's argument that transmitters may take

protective "good faith actio[n]'' by "tagging'' their indecent communications in

a way that would indicate their contents, thus permitting recipients to block

their reception with appropriate software, is illusory, given the requirement

that such action be "effective'': The proposed screening software does not

currently exist, but, even if it did, there would be no way of knowing whether a

potential recipient would actually block the encoded material. The

Government also failed to prove that §223(b)(5)'s verification defense would

significantly reduce the CDA's heavy burden on adult speech. Although such

verification is actually being used by some commercial providers of sexually

explic it material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is not

economically feasible for most noncommercial speakers. Pp. ____-____.

(h) The Government's argument that this Court should preserve the CDA's

constitutionality by honoring its severability c lause, §608, and by construing

nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable in only one respect. Because

obscene speech may be banned totally, see Miller, supra, at 18, 93 S .Ct., at

2611-2612, and §223(a)'s restriction of "obscene'' material enjoys a textual

manifestation separate from that for "indecent'' material, the Court can sever

the term "or indecent'' from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing.

Pp. ____-____.

(i) The Government's argument that its "significant'' interest in fostering the

Internet's growth provides an independent basis for upholding the CDA's

« up


3 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

T h e In ter n et

constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive. The dramatic expansion of this new

forum contradicts the factual basis underlying this contention: that the

unregulated availability of "indecent'' and "patently offensive'' material is

driving people away from the Internet. P. 2351.

929 F.Supp. 824, affirmed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY,

SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed an

opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which

REHNQUIST, C. J., joined.

Seth P. Waxman, Washington, DC, for appellants.

Bruce J. Ennis, Washington, DC, for appellees.

Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A t issu e is th e con st itu t ion a lity of tw o sta tu tor y pr ov ision s en a cted topr otect m in or s fr om "in decen t '' a n d "pa ten t ly offen siv e''com m u n ica t ion s on th e In ter n et . Notw ith sta n din g th e leg it im a cy a n dim por ta n ce of th e con g r ession a l g oa l of pr otect in g ch ildr en fr omh a r m fu l m a ter ia ls, w e a g r ee w ith th e th r ee-ju dg e Distr ict Cou r t th a tth e sta tu te a br idg es "th e fr eedom of speech '' pr otected by th e Fir stA m en dm en t .1

1

* T h e Distr ict Cou r t m a de ex ten siv e fin din g s of fa ct , m ost of w h ichw er e ba sed on a deta iled st ipu la t ion pr epa r ed by th e pa r t ies. See 9 2 9F.Su pp. 8 2 4 , 8 3 0 -8 4 9 (E.D.Pa .1 9 9 6 ).2 T h e fin din g s descr ibe th ech a r a cter a n d th e dim en sion s of th e In ter n et , th e a v a ila bility ofsex u a lly ex plicit m a ter ia l in th a t m ediu m , a n d th e pr oblem scon fr on t in g a g e v er ifica t ion for r ecipien ts of In ter n et com m u n ica t ion s.Beca u se th ose fin din g s pr ov ide th e u n der pin n in g s for th e leg a l issu es,w e beg in w ith a su m m a r y of th e u n dispu ted fa cts.

2

T h e In ter n et is a n in ter n a t ion a l n etw or k of in ter con n ectedcom pu ter s. It is th e ou tg r ow th of w h a t beg a n in 1 9 6 9 a s a m ilita r ypr og r a m ca lled "A RPA NET ,''3 w h ich w a s desig n ed to en a ble com pu ter soper a ted by th e m ilita r y , defen se con tr a ctor s, a n d u n iv er sit iescon du ct in g defen se-r ela ted r esea r ch to com m u n ica te w ith on e a n oth erby r edu n da n t ch a n n els ev en if som e por t ion s of th e n etw or k w er eda m a g ed in a w a r . W h ile th e A RPA NET n o lon g er ex ist s, it pr ov ided a nex a m ple for th e dev elopm en t of a n u m ber of civ ilia n n etw or ks th a t ,ev en tu a lly lin kin g w ith ea ch oth er , n ow en a ble ten s of m illion s ofpeople to com m u n ica te w ith on e a n oth er a n d to a ccess v a st a m ou n ts ofin for m a t ion fr om a r ou n d th e w or ld. T h e In ter n et is "a u n iqu e a n dw h olly n ew m ediu m of w or ldw ide h u m a n com m u n ica t ion . ''4

3

T h e In ter n et h a s ex per ien ced "ex tr a or din a r y g r ow th . ''5 T h e n u m berof "h ost '' com pu ter s-th ose th a t stor e in for m a t ion a n d r ela ycom m u n ica t ion s-in cr ea sed fr om a bou t 3 0 0 in 1 9 8 1 to a ppr ox im a tely9 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0 by th e t im e of th e t r ia l in 1 9 9 6 . Rou g h ly 6 0 % of th ese h ostsa r e loca ted in th e Un ited Sta tes. A bou t 4 0 m illion people u sed th eIn ter n et a t th e t im e of t r ia l, a n u m ber th a t is ex pected to m u sh r oom to

4

« up


4 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

2 0 0 m illion by 1 9 9 9 .

In div idu a ls ca n obta in a ccess to th e In ter n et fr om m a n y differ en tsou r ces, g en er a lly h osts th em selv es or en t it ies w it h a h ost a ffilia t ion .Most colleg es a n d u n iv er sit ies pr ov ide a ccess for t h eir stu den ts a n dfa cu lty ; m a n y cor por a t ion s pr ov ide th eir em ploy ees w ith a ccessth r ou g h a n office n etw or k; m a n y com m u n it ies a n d loca l libr a r iespr ov ide fr ee a ccess; a n d a n in cr ea sin g n u m ber of st or efr on t "com pu tercoffee sh ops'' pr ov ide a ccess for a sm a ll h ou r ly fee. Sev er a l m a jorn a t ion a l "on lin e ser v ices'' su ch a s A m er ica On lin e, Com pu Ser v e, th eMicr osoft Netw or k, a n d Pr odig y offer a ccess to th eir ow n ex ten siv epr opr ieta r y n etw or ks a s w ell a s a lin k to th e m u ch la r g er r esou r ces ofth e In ter n et . T h ese com m er cia l on lin e ser v ices h a d a lm ost 1 2 m illionin div idu a l su bscr iber s a t th e t im e of t r ia l.

5

A n y on e w ith a ccess to th e In ter n et m a y ta ke a dv a n ta g e of a w idev a r iety of com m u n ica t ion a n d in for m a t ion r etr iev a l m eth ods. T h esem eth ods a r e con sta n t ly ev olv in g a n d difficu lt to ca teg or ize pr ecisely .Bu t , a s pr esen t ly con st itu ted, th ose m ost r elev a n t to th is ca se a r eelectr on ic m a il ("e-m a il'') , a u tom a t ic m a ilin g list ser v ices ("m a ilex ploder s, '' som et im es r efer r ed to a s "listser v s'') , "n ew sg r ou ps, '' "ch a tr oom s, '' a n d th e "W or ld W ide W eb. '' A ll of th ese m eth ods ca n be u sed totr a n sm it tex t ; m ost ca n t r a n sm it sou n d, pictu r es, a n d m ov in g v ideoim a g es. T a ken tog eth er , th ese tools con st itu te a u n iqu e m ediu m -kn ow nto it s u ser s a s "cy ber spa ce''-loca ted in n o pa r t icu la r g eog r a ph ica lloca t ion bu t a v a ila ble to a n y on e, a n y w h er e in th e w or ld, w ith a ccess toth e In ter n et .

6

E-m a il en a bles a n in div idu a l to sen d a n electr on ic m essa g e-g en er a llya kin to a n ote or let ter -to a n oth er in div idu a l or t o a g r ou p ofa ddr essees. T h e m essa g e is g en er a lly stor ed electr on ica lly , som et im esw a it in g for th e r ecipien t to ch eck h er "m a ilbox '' a n d som et im es m a kin gits r eceipt kn ow n th r ou g h som e ty pe of pr om pt . A m a il ex ploder is asor t of e-m a il g r ou p. Su bscr iber s ca n sen d m essa g es to a com m one-m a il a ddr ess, w h ich th en for w a r ds th e m essa g e to th e g r ou p's oth ersu bscr iber s. New sg r ou ps a lso ser v e g r ou ps of r eg u la r pa r t icipa n ts, bu tth ese post in g s m a y be r ea d by oth er s a s w ell. T h er e a r e th ou sa n ds ofsu ch g r ou ps, ea ch ser v in g to foster a n ex ch a n g e of in for m a t ion oropin ion on a pa r t icu la r topic r u n n in g th e g a m u t fr om , sa y , th e m u sicof W a g n er to Ba lka n polit ics to A IDS pr ev en t ion to th e Ch ica g o Bu lls.A bou t 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 n ew m essa g es a r e posted ev er y da y . In m ostn ew sg r ou ps, post in g s a r e a u tom a t ica lly pu r g ed a t r eg u la r in ter v a ls. Ina ddit ion to post in g a m essa g e th a t ca n be r ea d la ter , tw o or m or ein div idu a ls w ish in g to com m u n ica te m or e im m edia tely ca n en ter ach a t r oom to en g a g e in r ea l-t im e dia log u e-in oth er w or ds, by ty pin gm essa g es to on e a n oth er th a t a ppea r a lm ost im m edia t ely on th e oth er s'com pu ter scr een s. T h e Distr ict Cou r t fou n d th a t a t a n y g iv en t im e"ten s of th ou sa n ds of u ser s a r e en g a g in g in con v er sa t ion s on a h u g er a n g e of su bjects. ''6 It is "n o ex a g g er a t ion to con clu de th a t th e con ten ton th e In ter n et is a s div er se a s h u m a n th ou g h t . ''7

7

T h e best kn ow n ca teg or y of com m u n ica t ion ov er th e In ter n et is th eW or ld W ide W eb, w h ich a llow s u ser s to sea r ch for a n d r etr iev ein for m a t ion stor ed in r em ote com pu ter s, a s w ell a s, in som e ca ses, to

8

« up


5 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

Sex u a lly Ex plicit Ma ter ia l

com m u n ica te ba ck to desig n a ted sites. In con cr ete t er m s, th e W ebcon sists of a v a st n u m ber of docu m en ts stor ed in differ en t com pu ter sa ll ov er th e w or ld. Som e of th ese docu m en ts a r e sim ply files con ta in in gin for m a t ion . How ev er , m or e ela bor a te docu m en ts, com m on ly kn ow na s W eb "pa g es, '' a r e a lso pr ev a len t . Ea ch h a s it s ow n a ddr ess-"r a th erlike a teleph on e n u m ber . ''8 W eb pa g es fr equ en t ly con ta in in for m a t iona n d som et im es a llow th e v iew er to com m u n ica te w ith th e pa g e's (or"site's'') a u th or . T h ey g en er a lly a lso con ta in "lin ks'' to oth er docu m en tscr ea ted by th a t site's a u th or or to oth er (g en er a lly ) r ela ted sites.T y pica lly , th e lin ks a r e eith er blu e or u n der lin ed tex t -som et im esim a g es.

Na v ig a t in g th e W eb is r ela t iv ely st r a ig h t for w a r d. A u ser m a y eith erty pe th e a ddr ess of a kn ow n pa g e or en ter on e or m or e key w or ds in to acom m er cia l "sea r ch en g in e'' in a n effor t to loca te sites on a su bject ofin ter est . A pa r t icu la r W eb pa g e m a y con ta in th e in for m a t ion sou g h tby th e "su r fer , '' or , th r ou g h it s lin ks, it m a y be a n a v en u e to oth erdocu m en ts loca ted a n y w h er e on th e In ter n et . User s g en er a lly ex plor e ag iv en W eb pa g e, or m ov e to a n oth er , by clickin g a com pu ter "m ou se''on on e of th e pa g e's icon s or lin ks. A ccess to m ost W eb pa g es is fr eelya v a ila ble, bu t som e a llow a ccess on ly to th ose w h o h a v e pu r ch a sed th er ig h t fr om a com m er cia l pr ov ider . T h e W eb is th u s com pa r a ble, fr omth e r ea der s' v iew poin t , to both a v a st libr a r y in clu din g m illion s ofr ea dily a v a ila ble a n d in dex ed pu blica t ion s a n d a spr a w lin g m a lloffer in g g oods a n d ser v ices.

9

Fr om th e pu blish er s' poin t of v iew , it con st itu tes a v a st pla t for m fr omw h ich to a ddr ess a n d h ea r fr om a w or ld-w ide a u dien ce of m illion s ofr ea der s, v iew er s, r esea r ch er s, a n d bu y er s. A n y per son or or g a n iza t ionw ith a com pu ter con n ected to th e In ter n et ca n "pu blish '' in for m a t ion .Pu blish er s in clu de g ov er n m en t a g en cies, edu ca t ion a l in st itu t ion s,com m er cia l en t it ies, a dv oca cy g r ou ps, a n d in div idu a ls.9 Pu blish er sm a y eith er m a ke th eir m a ter ia l a v a ila ble to th e en t ir e pool of In ter n etu ser s, or con fin e a ccess to a selected g r ou p, su ch a s th ose w illin g to pa yfor th e pr iv ileg e. "No sin g le or g a n iza t ion con tr ols a n y m em ber sh ip inth e W eb, n or is th er e a n y cen tr a lized poin t fr om w h ich in div idu a l W ebsites or ser v ices ca n be blocked fr om th e W eb. ''10

10

Sex u a lly ex plicit m a ter ia l on th e In ter n et in clu des tex t , pictu r es,a n d ch a t a n d "ex ten ds fr om th e m odest ly t it illa t in g to th e h a r dest -cor e. ''11 T h ese files a r e cr ea ted, n a m ed, a n d posted in th e sa m e m a n n era s m a ter ia l th a t is n ot sex u a lly ex plicit , a n d m a y be a ccessed eith erdeliber a tely or u n in ten t ion a lly du r in g th e cou r se of a n im pr ecisesea r ch . "On ce a pr ov ider posts it s con ten t on th e In ter n et , it ca n n otpr ev en t th a t con ten t fr om en ter in g a n y com m u n ity . ''12 T h u s, forex a m ple,

11

"w h en th e UCR/Ca lifor n ia Mu seu m of Ph otog r a ph y posts to it s W ebsite n u des by Edw a r d W eston a n d Rober t Ma ppleth or pe to a n n ou n ceth a t it s n ew ex h ibit w ill t r a v el to Ba lt im or e a n d New Y or k City , th oseim a g es a r e a v a ila ble n ot on ly in Los A n g eles, Ba lt im or e, a n d New Y or kCity , bu t a lso in Cin cin n a t i, Mobile, or Beijin g -w h er ev er In ter n et u ser s

12

« up


6 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

A g e V er ifica t ion

liv e. Sim ila r ly , th e sa fer sex in str u ct ion s th a t Cr it ica l Pa th posts to it sW eb site, w r it ten in st r eet la n g u a g e so th a t th e teen a g e r eceiv er ca nu n der sta n d th em , a r e a v a ila ble n ot ju st in Ph ila delph ia , bu t a lso inPr ov o a n d Pr a g u e. ''13

Som e of th e com m u n ica t ion s ov er th e In ter n et th a t or ig in a te infor eig n cou n tr ies a r e a lso sex u a lly ex plicit .14

13

T h ou g h su ch m a ter ia l is w idely a v a ila ble, u ser s seldom en cou n tersu ch con ten t a cciden ta lly . "A docu m en t 's t it le or a descr ipt ion of th edocu m en t w ill u su a lly a ppea r befor e th e docu m en t it self . . . a n d inm a n y ca ses th e u ser w ill r eceiv e deta iled in for m a t ion a bou t a site'scon ten t befor e h e or sh e n eed ta ke th e step to a ccess th e docu m en t .A lm ost a ll sex u a lly ex plicit im a g es a r e pr eceded by w a r n in g s a s to th econ ten t . ''15 For th a t r ea son , th e "odds a r e slim '' th a t a u ser w ou ld en tera sex u a lly ex plicit site by a cciden t .16 Un like com m u n ica t ion s r eceiv edby r a dio or telev ision , "th e r eceipt of in for m a t ion on th e In ter n etr equ ir es a ser ies of a ffir m a t iv e steps m or e deliber a te a n d dir ected th a nm er ely tu r n in g a dia l. A ch ild r equ ir es som e soph ist ica t ion a n d som ea bility to r ea d to r etr iev e m a ter ia l a n d th er eby to u se th e In ter n etu n a t ten ded. ''17

14

Sy stem s h a v e been dev eloped to h elp pa r en ts con tr ol th e m a ter ia lth a t m a y be a v a ila ble on a h om e com pu ter w ith In ter n et a ccess. Asy stem m a y eith er lim it a com pu ter 's a ccess to a n a ppr ov ed list ofsou r ces th a t h a v e been iden t ified a s con ta in in g n o a du lt m a ter ia l, itm a y block desig n a ted in a ppr opr ia te sites, or it m a y a t tem pt to blockm essa g es con ta in in g iden t ifia ble object ion a ble fea t u r es. "A lth ou g hpa r en ta l con tr ol softw a r e cu r r en t ly ca n scr een for cer ta in su g g est iv ew or ds or for kn ow n sex u a lly ex plicit sites, it ca n n ot n ow scr een forsex u a lly ex plicit im a g es. ''18 Nev er th eless, th e ev iden ce in dica tes th a t"a r ea son a bly effect iv e m eth od by w h ich pa r en ts ca n pr ev en t th eirch ildr en fr om a ccessin g sex u a lly ex plicit a n d oth er m a ter ia l w h ichpa r en ts m a y believ e is in a ppr opr ia te for th eir ch ildr en w ill soon bea v a ila ble. ''19

15

T h e pr oblem of a g e v er ifica t ion differ s for differ en t u ses of th eIn ter n et . T h e Distr ict Cou r t ca teg or ica lly deter m in ed th a t th er e "is n oeffect iv e w a y to deter m in e th e iden t ity or th e a g e of a u ser w h o isa ccessin g m a ter ia l th r ou g h e-m a il, m a il ex ploder s, n ew sg r ou ps or ch a tr oom s. ''20 T h e Gov er n m en t offer ed n o ev iden ce th a t th er e w a s ar elia ble w a y to scr een r ecipien ts a n d pa r t icipa n ts in su ch for a for a g e.Mor eov er , ev en if it w er e tech n olog ica lly fea sible to block m in or s'a ccess to n ew sg r ou ps a n d ch a t r oom s con ta in in g discu ssion s of a r t ,polit ics or oth er su bjects th a t poten t ia lly elicit "in decen t '' or "pa ten t lyoffen siv e'' con tr ibu t ion s, it w ou ld n ot be possible to block th eir a ccess toth a t m a ter ia l a n d "st ill a llow th em a ccess to th e r em a in in g con ten t ,ev en if th e ov er w h elm in g m a jor ity of th a t con ten t w a s n otin decen t . ''21

16

T ech n olog y ex ists by w h ich a n oper a tor of a W eb sit e m a y con dit iona ccess on th e v er ifica t ion of r equ ested in for m a t ion su ch a s a cr edit ca r dn u m ber or a n a du lt pa ssw or d. Cr edit ca r d v er ifica t ion is on ly fea sible,

17

« up


7 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

In su m , th e Distr ict Cou r t fou n d:

II

h ow ev er , eith er in con n ect ion w ith a com m er cia l t r a n sa ct ion in w h ichth e ca r d is u sed, or by pa y m en t to a v er ifica t ion a g en cy . Usin g cr editca r d possession a s a su r r og a te for pr oof of a g e w ou ld im pose costs onn on -com m er cia l W eb sites th a t w ou ld r equ ir e m a n y of th em to sh u tdow n . For th a t r ea son , a t th e t im e of th e t r ia l, cr edit ca r d v er ifica t ionw a s "effect iv ely u n a v a ila ble to a su bsta n t ia l n u m ber of In ter n etcon ten t pr ov ider s. '' Id. , a t 8 4 6 (fin din g 1 0 2 ). Mor eov er , th e im posit ionof su ch a r equ ir em en t "w ou ld com pletely ba r a du lts w h o do n ot h a v e acr edit ca r d a n d la ck th e r esou r ces to obta in on e fr om a ccessin g a n yblocked m a ter ia l. ''22

Com m er cia l por n og r a ph ic sites th a t ch a r g e th eir u ser s for a ccessh a v e a ssig n ed th em pa ssw or ds a s a m eth od of a g e v er ifica t ion . T h er ecor d does n ot con ta in a n y ev iden ce con cer n in g th e r elia bility of th esetech n olog ies. Ev en if pa ssw or ds a r e effect iv e for com m er cia l pu r v ey or sof in decen t m a ter ia l, th e Distr ict Cou r t fou n d th a t a n a du lt pa ssw or dr equ ir em en t w ou ld im pose sig n ifica n t bu r den s on n on com m er cia lsites, both beca u se th ey w ou ld discou r a g e u ser s fr om a ccessin g th eirsites a n d beca u se th e cost of cr ea t in g a n d m a in ta in in g su ch scr een in gsy stem s w ou ld be "bey on d th eir r ea ch . ''23

18

"Ev en if cr edit ca r d v er ifica t ion or a du lt pa ssw or d v er ifica t ion w er eim plem en ted, th e Gov er n m en t pr esen ted n o test im on y a s to h ow su chsy stem s cou ld en su r e th a t th e u ser of th e pa ssw or d or cr edit ca r d is infa ct ov er 1 8 . T h e bu r den s im posed by cr edit ca r d v er ifica t ion a n da du lt pa ssw or d v er ifica t ion sy stem s m a ke th em effect iv elyu n a v a ila ble to a su bsta n t ia l n u m ber of In ter n et con ten t pr ov ider s. ''Ibid. (fin din g 1 0 7 ).

19

T h e T elecom m u n ica t ion s A ct of 1 9 9 6 , Pu b.L. 1 0 4 -1 0 4 , 1 1 0 Sta t . 5 6 ,w a s a n u n u su a lly im por ta n t leg isla t iv e en a ctm en t . A s sta ted on th efir st of it s 1 0 3 pa g es, it s pr im a r y pu r pose w a s to r edu ce r eg u la t ion a n den cou r a g e "th e r a pid deploy m en t of n ew telecom m u n ica t ion stech n olog ies. '' T h e m a jor com pon en ts of th e sta tu te h a v e n oth in g to dow ith th e In ter n et ; th ey w er e desig n ed to pr om ote com pet it ion in th eloca l teleph on e ser v ice m a r ket , th e m u lt ich a n n el v ideo m a r ket , a n dth e m a r ket for ov er -th e-a ir br oa dca st in g . T h e A ct in clu des sev enT it les, six of w h ich a r e th e pr odu ct of ex ten siv e com m it tee h ea r in g sa n d th e su bject of discu ssion in Repor ts pr epa r ed by Com m ittees of th eSen a te a n d th e Hou se of Repr esen ta t iv es. By con tr a st , T it le V -kn ow n a sth e "Com m u n ica t ion s Decen cy A ct of 1 9 9 6 '' (CDA )-con ta in s pr ov ision sth a t w er e eith er a dded in ex ecu t iv e com m ittee a fter th e h ea r in g s w er econ clu ded or a s a m en dm en ts offer ed du r in g floor deba te on th eleg isla t ion . A n a m en dm en t offer ed in th e Sen a te w a s th e sou r ce of th etw o sta tu tor y pr ov ision s ch a llen g ed in th is ca se.24 T h ey a r ein for m a lly descr ibed a s th e "in decen t t r a n sm ission '' pr ov ision a n d th e"pa ten t ly offen siv e displa y '' pr ov ision .25

20

T h e fir st , 4 7 U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (a ) (Su pp.1 9 9 7 ), pr oh ibits th e kn ow in gtr a n sm ission of obscen e or in decen t m essa g es to a n y r ecipien t u n der 1 8y ea r s of a g e. It pr ov ides in per t in en t pa r t :

21

« up


8 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

" (a ) W h oev er -22

" (1 ) in in ter sta te or for eig n com m u n ica t ion s-23

. . . . .24

" (B) by m ea n s of a telecom m u n ica t ion s dev ice kn ow in g ly -25

" (i) m a kes, cr ea tes, or solicit s, a n d26

" (ii) in it ia tes th e t r a n sm ission of,27

"a n y com m en t , r equ est , su g g est ion , pr oposa l, im a g e, or oth ercom m u n ica t ion w h ich is obscen e or in decen t , kn ow in g th a t th er ecipien t of th e com m u n ica t ion is u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e, r eg a r dless ofw h eth er th e m a ker of su ch com m u n ica t ion pla ced th e ca ll or in it ia tedth e com m u n ica t ion ;

28

. . . . .29

" (2 ) kn ow in g ly per m its a n y telecom m u n ica t ion s fa cility u n der h iscon tr ol to be u sed for a n y a ct iv ity pr oh ibited by pa r a g r a ph (1 ) w ithth e in ten t th a t it be u sed for su ch a ct iv ity ,

30

"sh a ll be fin ed u n der T it le 1 8 , or im pr ison ed n ot m or e th a n tw oy ea r s, or both . ''

31

T h e secon d pr ov ision , §2 2 3 (d), pr oh ibits th e kn ow in g sen din g ordispla y in g of pa ten t ly offen siv e m essa g es in a m a n n er th a t is a v a ila bleto a per son u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e. It pr ov ides:

32

" (d) W h oev er -33

" (1 ) in in ter sta te or for eig n com m u n ica t ion s kn ow in g ly -34

" (A ) u ses a n in ter a ct iv e com pu ter ser v ice to sen d to a specific per sonor per son s u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e, or

35

" (B) u ses a n y in ter a ct iv e com pu ter ser v ice to displa y in a m a n n era v a ila ble to a per son u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e,

36

"a n y com m en t , r equ est , su g g est ion , pr oposa l, im a g e, or oth ercom m u n ica t ion th a t , in con tex t , depicts or descr ibes, in ter m s pa ten t lyoffen siv e a s m ea su r ed by con tem por a r y com m u n ity sta n da r ds, sex u a lor ex cr etor y a ct iv it ies or or g a n s, r eg a r dless of w h eth er th e u ser of su chser v ice pla ced th e ca ll or in it ia ted th e com m u n ica t ion ; or

37

" (2 ) kn ow in g ly per m its a n y telecom m u n ica t ion s fa cility u n der su chper son 's con tr ol to be u sed for a n a ct iv ity pr oh ibited by pa r a g r a ph (1 )w ith th e in ten t th a t it be u sed for su ch a ct iv ity ,

38

"sh a ll be fin ed u n der T it le 1 8 , or im pr ison ed n ot m or e th a n tw oy ea r s, or both . ''

39

T h e br ea dth of th ese pr oh ibit ion s is qu a lified by t w o a ffir m a t iv edefen ses. See §2 2 3 (e)(5 ).26 On e cov er s th ose w h o ta ke "g ood fa ith ,r ea son a ble, effect iv e, a n d a ppr opr ia te a ct ion s'' to r estr ict a ccess bym in or s to th e pr oh ibited com m u n ica t ion s. §2 2 3 (e)(5 )(A ). T h e oth er

40

« up


9 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

III

cov er s th ose w h o r estr ict a ccess to cov er ed m a ter ia l by r equ ir in gcer ta in desig n a ted for m s of a g e pr oof, su ch a s a v er ified cr edit ca r d ora n a du lt iden t ifica t ion n u m ber or code. §2 2 3 (e)(5 )(B).

On Febr u a r y 8 , 1 9 9 6 , im m edia tely a fter th e Pr esiden t sig n ed th esta tu te, 2 0 pla in t iffs27 filed su it a g a in st th e A t tor n ey Gen er a l of th eUn ited Sta tes a n d th e Depa r tm en t of Ju st ice ch a llen g in g th econ st itu t ion a lity of §§2 2 3 (a )(1 ) a n d 2 2 3 (d). A w eek la ter , ba sed on h iscon clu sion th a t th e ter m "in decen t '' w a s too v a g u e to pr ov ide th e ba sisfor a cr im in a l pr osecu t ion , Distr ict Ju dg e Bu ckw a lter en ter ed atem por a r y r estr a in in g or der a g a in st en for cem en t of §2 2 3 (a )(1 )(B)(ii)in sofa r a s it a pplies to in decen t com m u n ica t ion s. A secon d su it w a sth en filed by 2 7 a ddit ion a l pla in t iffs,28 th e tw o ca ses w er econ solida ted, a n d a th r ee-ju dg e Distr ict Cou r t w a s con v en ed pu r su a n tto §5 6 1 of th e A ct .29 A fter a n ev iden t ia r y h ea r in g , th a t Cou r t en ter eda pr elim in a r y in ju n ct ion a g a in st en for cem en t of bot h of th e ch a llen g edpr ov ision s. Ea ch of th e th r ee ju dg es w r ote a sepa r a te opin ion , bu t th eirju dg m en t w a s u n a n im ou s.

41

Ch ief Ju dg e Slov iter dou bted th e st r en g th of th e Gov er n m en t 'sin ter est in r eg u la t in g "th e v a st r a n g e of on lin e m a ter ia l cov er ed orpoten t ia lly cov er ed by th e CDA ,'' bu t a ckn ow ledg ed th a t th e in ter estw a s "com pellin g '' w ith r espect to som e of th a t m a ter ia l. 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t8 5 3 . Sh e con clu ded, n on eth eless, th a t th e sta tu te "sw eeps m or ebr oa dly th a n n ecessa r y a n d th er eby ch ills th e ex pr ession of a du lts'' a n dth a t th e ter m s "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a n d "in decen t '' w er e "in h er en t lyv a g u e. '' Id. , a t 8 5 4 . Sh e a lso deter m in ed th a t th e a ffir m a t iv e defen sesw er e n ot "tech n olog ica lly or econ om ica lly fea sible for m ost pr ov ider s, ''specifica lly con sider in g a n d r eject in g a n a r g u m en t th a t pr ov ider scou ld a v oid lia bility by "ta g g in g '' th eir m a ter ia l in a m a n n er th a tw ou ld a llow poten t ia l r ea der s to scr een ou t u n w a n ted t r a n sm ission s.Id. , a t 8 5 6 . Ch ief Ju dg e Slov iter a lso r ejected th e Gov er n m en t 'ssu g g est ion th a t th e scope of th e sta tu te cou ld be n a r r ow ed bycon str u in g it to a pply on ly to com m er cia l por n og r a ph er s. Id. , a t8 5 4 -8 5 5 .

42

Ju dg e Bu ckw a lter con clu ded th a t th e w or d "in decen t '' in §2 2 3 (a )(1 )(B) a n d th e ter m s "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a n d "in con tex t '' in §2 2 3 (d)(1 )w er e so v a g u e th a t cr im in a l en for cem en t of eith er sect ion w ou ldv iola te th e "fu n da m en ta l con st itu t ion a l pr in ciple'' of "sim ple fa ir n ess, ''id. , a t 8 6 1 , a n d th e specific pr otect ion s of th e Fir st a n d FifthA m en dm en ts, id. , a t 8 5 8 . He fou n d n o sta tu tor y ba sis for th eGov er n m en t 's a r g u m en t th a t th e ch a llen g ed pr ov ision s w ou ld bea pplied on ly to "por n og r a ph ic '' m a ter ia ls, n ot in g t h a t , u n likeobscen ity , "in decen cy h a s not been defin ed to ex clu de w or ks of ser iou sliter a r y , a r t ist ic , polit ica l or scien t ific v a lu e. '' Id. , a t 8 6 3 . Mor eov er ,th e Gov er n m en t 's c la im th a t th e w or k m u st be con sider ed pa ten t lyoffen siv e "in con tex t '' w a s it self v a g u e beca u se th e r elev a n t con tex tm ig h t "r efer to, a m on g oth er th in g s, th e n a tu r e of th e com m u n ica t iona s a w h ole, th e t im e of da y it w a s con v ey ed, th e m ediu m u sed, th eiden t ity of th e spea ker , or w h eth er or n ot it is a ccom pa n ied bya ppr opr ia te w a r n in g s. '' Id. , a t 8 6 4 . He believ ed th a t th e u n iqu e n a tu r e

43

« up


10 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

IV

of th e In ter n et a g g r a v a ted th e v a g u en ess of th e sta tu te. Id. , a t 8 6 5 , n .9 .

Ju dg e Da lzell 's r ev iew of "th e specia l a t t r ibu tes of In ter n etcom m u n ica t ion '' disclosed by th e ev iden ce con v in ced h im th a t th eFir st A m en dm en t den ies Con g r ess th e pow er to r eg u la te th e con ten t ofpr otected speech on th e In ter n et . Id. , a t 8 6 7 . His opin ion ex pla in ed a tlen g th w h y h e believ ed th e A ct w ou ld a br idg e sig n ifica n t pr otectedspeech , pa r t icu la r ly by n on com m er cia l spea ker s, w h ile " [p]er v er sely ,com m er cia l por n og r a ph er s w ou ld r em a in r ela t iv ely u n a ffected. '' Id. , a t8 7 9 . He con str u ed ou r ca ses a s r equ ir in g a "m ediu m -specific '' a ppr oa chto th e a n a ly sis of th e r eg u la t ion of m a ss com m u n ica t ion , id. , a t 8 7 3 ,a n d con clu ded th a t th e In ter n et-a s "th e m ost pa r t ic ipa tor y for m ofm a ss speech y et dev eloped, '' id. , a t 8 8 3 -is en t it led to "th e h ig h estpr otect ion fr om g ov er n m en ta l in tr u sion , '' ibid.30

44

T h e ju dg m en t of th e Distr ict Cou r t en join s th e Gov er n m en t fr omen for cin g th e pr oh ibit ion s in §2 2 3 (a )(1 )(B) in sofa r a s th ey r ela te to"in decen t '' com m u n ica t ion s, bu t ex pr essly pr eser v es th e Gov er n m en t 'sr ig h t to in v est ig a te a n d pr osecu te th e obscen ity or ch ild por n og r a ph ya ct iv it ies pr oh ibited th er ein . T h e in ju n ct ion a g a in st en for cem en t of§§2 2 3 (d)(1 ) a n d (2 ) is u n qu a lified beca u se th ose pr ov ision s con ta in n osepa r a te r efer en ce to obscen ity or ch ild por n og r a ph y .

45

T h e Gov er n m en t a ppea led u n der th e A ct 's specia l r ev iew pr ov ision s,§5 6 1 , 1 1 0 Sta t . 1 4 2 -1 4 3 , a n d w e n oted pr oba ble ju r isdict ion , see 5 1 9U.S. ----, 1 1 7 S.Ct . 5 5 4 , 1 3 6 L.Ed.2 d 4 3 6 (1 9 9 6 ). In it s a ppea l, th eGov er n m en t a r g u es th a t th e Distr ict Cou r t er r ed in h oldin g th a t th eCDA v iola ted both th e Fir st A m en dm en t beca u se it is ov er br oa d a n dth e Fifth A m en dm en t beca u se it is v a g u e. W h ile w e discu ss th ev a g u en ess of th e CDA beca u se of it s r elev a n ce to th e Fir st A m en dm en tov er br ea dth in qu ir y , w e con clu de th a t th e ju dg m en t sh ou ld bea ffir m ed w ith ou t r ea ch in g th e Fifth A m en dm en t issu e. W e beg in ou ra n a ly sis by r ev iew in g th e pr in cipa l a u th or it ies on w h ich th eGov er n m en t r elies. T h en , a fter descr ibin g th e ov er br ea dth of th e CDA ,w e con sider th e Gov er n m en t 's specific con ten t ion s, in clu din g it ssu bm ission th a t w e sa v e por t ion s of th e sta tu te eit h er by sev er a n ce orby fa sh ion in g ju dicia l lim ita t ion s on th e scope of it s cov er a g e.

46

In a r g u in g for r ev er sa l, th e Gov er n m en t con ten ds th a t th e CDA ispla in ly con st itu t ion a l u n der th r ee of ou r pr ior decision s: (1 ) Gins berg v .New Y ork , 3 9 0 U.S. 6 2 9 , 8 8 S.Ct . 1 2 7 4 , 2 0 L.Ed.2 d 1 9 5 (1 9 6 8 ); (2 )FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 4 3 8 U.S. 7 2 6 , 9 8 S.Ct . 3 0 2 6 , 5 7 L.Ed.2 d1 0 7 3 (1 9 7 8 ); a n d (3 ) Renton v . Playtim e Theatres , Inc. , 4 7 5 U.S. 4 1 ,1 0 6 S.Ct . 9 2 5 , 8 9 L.Ed.2 d 2 9 (1 9 8 6 ). A close look a t th ese ca ses,h ow ev er , r a ises-r a th er th a n r eliev es-dou bts con cer n in g th econ st itu t ion a lity of th e CDA .

47

In Gins berg, w e u ph eld th e con st itu t ion a lity of a New Y or k sta t u teth a t pr oh ibited sellin g to m in or s u n der 1 7 y ea r s of a g e m a ter ia l th a tw a s con sider ed obscen e a s to th em ev en if n ot obscen e a s to a du lts. W er ejected th e defen da n t 's br oa d su bm ission th a t "th e scope of th econ st itu t ion a l fr eedom of ex pr ession secu r ed to a c it izen to r ea d or see

48

« up


11 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

m a ter ia l con cer n ed w ith sex ca n n ot be m a de to depen d on w h eth er th ecit izen is a n a du lt or a m in or . '' 3 9 0 U.S. , a t 6 3 6 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 7 9 . Inr eject in g th a t con ten t ion , w e r elied n ot on ly on th e Sta te's in depen den tin ter est in th e w ell-bein g of it s y ou th , bu t a lso on ou r con sisten tr ecog n it ion of th e pr in ciple th a t "th e pa r en ts' c la im to a u th or ity inth eir ow n h ou seh old to dir ect th e r ea r in g of th eir ch ildr en is ba sic inth e st r u ctu r e of ou r society . ''31

In fou r im por ta n t r espects, th e sta tu te u ph eld in Gins berg w a sn a r r ow er th a n th e CDA . Fir st , w e n oted in Gins berg th a t "th epr oh ibit ion a g a in st sa les to m in or s does n ot ba r pa r en ts w h o so desir efr om pu r ch a sin g th e m a g a zin es for th eir ch ildr en . '' Id. , a t 6 3 9 , 8 8S.Ct . , a t 1 2 8 0 . Un der th e CDA , by con tr a st , n eith er th e pa r en ts'con sen t-n or ev en th eir pa r t icipa t ion -in th e com m u n ica t ion w ou lda v oid th e a pplica t ion of th e sta tu te.32 Secon d, th e New Y or k sta tu tea pplied on ly to com m er cia l t r a n sa ct ion s, id. , a t 6 4 7 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t1 2 8 4 -1 2 8 5 , w h er ea s th e CDA con ta in s n o su ch lim ita t ion . T h ir d, th eNew Y or k sta tu te ca bin ed it s defin it ion of m a ter ia l th a t is h a r m fu l tom in or s w ith th e r equ ir em en t th a t it be "u t ter ly w it h ou t r edeem in gsocia l im por ta n ce for m in or s. '' Id. , a t 6 4 6 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 8 4 . T h e CDAfa ils to pr ov ide u s w ith a n y defin it ion of th e ter m "in decen t '' a s u sed in§2 2 3 (a )(1 ) a n d, im por ta n t ly , om its a n y r equ ir em en t th a t th e"pa ten t ly offen siv e'' m a ter ia l cov er ed by §2 2 3 (d) la ck ser iou s liter a r y ,a r t ist ic , polit ica l, or scien t ific v a lu e. Fou r th , th e New Y or k sta tu tedefin ed a m in or a s a per son u n der th e a g e of 1 7 , w h er ea s th e CDA , ina pply in g to a ll th ose u n der 1 8 y ea r s, in clu des a n a ddit ion a l y ea r ofth ose n ea r est m a jor ity .

49

In Pacifica, w e u ph eld a decla r a tor y or der of th e Feder a lCom m u n ica t ion s Com m ission , h oldin g th a t th e br oa dca st of ar ecor din g of a 1 2 -m in u te m on olog u e en t it led "Filth y W or ds'' th a t h a dpr ev iou sly been deliv er ed to a liv e a u dien ce "cou ld h a v e been th esu bject of a dm in istr a t iv e sa n ct ion s. '' 4 3 8 U.S. , a t 7 3 0 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t3 0 3 0 (in ter n a l qu ota t ion s om it ted). T h e Com m ission h a d fou n d th a tth e r epet it iv e u se of cer ta in w or ds r efer r in g to ex cr etor y or sex u a la ct iv it ies or or g a n s "in a n a fter n oon br oa dca st w h en ch ildr en a r e inth e a u dien ce w a s pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a n d con clu ded th a t th em on olog u e w a s in decen t "a s br oa dca st . '' Id. , a t 7 3 5 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 3 3 .T h e r espon den t did n ot qu a r r el w ith th e fin din g th a t th e a fter n oonbr oa dca st w a s pa ten t ly offen siv e, bu t con ten ded th a t it w a s n ot"in decen t '' w ith in th e m ea n in g of th e r elev a n t sta t u tes beca u se itcon ta in ed n o pr u r ien t a ppea l. A fter r eject in g r espon den t 's sta tu tor ya r g u m en ts, w e con fr on ted it s tw o con st itu t ion a l a r g u m en ts: (1 ) th a tth e Com m ission 's con str u ct ion of it s a u th or ity to ba n in decen t speechw a s so br oa d th a t it s or der h a d to be set a side ev en if th e br oa dca st a tissu e w a s u n pr otected; a n d (2 ) th a t sin ce th e r ecor din g w a s n otobscen e, th e Fir st A m en dm en t for ba de a n y a br idg em en t of th e r ig h t tobr oa dca st it on th e r a dio.

50

In th e por t ion of th e lea d opin ion n ot join ed by Ju st ices Pow ell a n dBla ckm u n , th e plu r a lity sta ted th a t th e Fir st A m en dm en t does n otpr oh ibit a ll g ov er n m en ta l r eg u la t ion th a t depen ds on th e con ten t ofspeech . Id. , a t 7 4 2 -7 4 3 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 3 6 -3 0 3 7 . A ccor din g ly , th ea v a ila bility of con st itu t ion a l pr otect ion for a v u lg a r a n d offen siv e

51

« up


12 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

m on olog u e th a t w a s n ot obscen e depen ded on th e con t ex t of th ebr oa dca st . Id. , a t 7 4 4 -7 4 8 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 3 7 -3 0 4 0 . Rely in g on th epr em ise th a t "of a ll for m s of com m u n ica t ion '' br oa dca st in g h a dr eceiv ed th e m ost lim ited Fir st A m en dm en t pr otect ion , id. , a t7 4 8 -7 4 9 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 3 9 -3 0 4 0 , th e Cou r t con clu ded th a t th e ea sew ith w h ich ch ildr en m a y obta in a ccess to br oa dca sts, "cou pled w ith th econ cer n s r ecog n ized in Gins berg, '' ju st ified specia l t r ea tm en t ofin decen t br oa dca st in g . Id. , a t 7 4 9 -7 5 0 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 4 0 -3 0 4 1 .

A s w ith th e New Y or k sta tu te a t issu e in Gins berg, th er e a r esig n ifica n t differ en ces betw een th e or der u ph eld in Pacifica a n d th eCDA . Fir st , th e or der in Pacifica, issu ed by a n a g en cy th a t h a d beenr eg u la t in g r a dio sta t ion s for deca des, ta r g eted a specific br oa dca st th a tr epr esen ted a r a th er dr a m a t ic depa r tu r e fr om tr a dit ion a l pr og r a mcon ten t in or der to desig n a te w h en -r a th er th a n w h et h er -it w ou ld beper m issible to a ir su ch a pr og r a m in th a t pa r t icu la r m ediu m . T h eCDA 's br oa d ca teg or ica l pr oh ibit ion s a r e n ot lim ited to pa r t icu la r t im esa n d a r e n ot depen den t on a n y ev a lu a t ion by a n a g en cy fa m ilia r w ithth e u n iqu e ch a r a cter ist ics of th e In ter n et . Secon d, u n like th e CDA , th eCom m ission 's decla r a tor y or der w a s n ot pu n it iv e; w e ex pr essly r efu sedto decide w h eth er th e in decen t br oa dca st "w ou ld ju st ify a cr im in a lpr osecu t ion . '' Id. , a t 7 5 0 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 4 1 . Fin a lly , th e Com m ission 'sor der a pplied to a m ediu m w h ich a s a m a tter of h ist or y h a d "r eceiv edth e m ost lim ited Fir st A m en dm en t pr otect ion , '' id. , a t 7 4 8 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t3 0 4 0 , in la r g e pa r t beca u se w a r n in g s cou ld n ot a dequ a tely pr otect th elisten er fr om u n ex pected pr og r a m con ten t . T h e In ter n et , h ow ev er , h a sn o com pa r a ble h istor y . Mor eov er , th e Distr ict Cou r t fou n d th a t th e r iskof en cou n ter in g in decen t m a ter ia l by a cciden t is r em ote beca u se aser ies of a ffir m a t iv e steps is r equ ir ed to a ccess specific m a ter ia l.

52

In Renton, w e u ph eld a zon in g or din a n ce th a t kept a du lt m ov ieth ea tr es ou t of r esiden t ia l n eig h bor h oods. T h e or din a n ce w a s a im ed,n ot a t th e con ten t of th e film s sh ow n in th e th ea ter s, bu t r a th er a t th e"secon da r y effects''-su ch a s cr im e a n d deter ior a t in g pr oper tyv a lu es-th a t th ese th ea ter s foster ed: ""It is th [e] secon da r y effect w h ichth ese zon in g or din a n ces a t tem pt to a v oid, n ot th e dissem in a t ion of"offen siv e'' speech . ''' 4 7 5 U.S. , a t 4 9 , 1 0 6 S.Ct . , a t 9 3 0 (qu ot in g Y oungv. Am erican Mini Theatres , Inc. , 4 2 7 U.S. 5 0 , 7 1 , n . 3 4 , 9 6 S.Ct . 2 4 4 0 ,2 4 5 3 , n . 3 4 , 4 9 L.Ed.2 d 3 1 0 (1 9 7 6 )). A ccor din g to th e Gov er n m en t ,th e CDA is con st itu t ion a l beca u se it con st itu tes a sor t of "cy ber zon in g ''on th e In ter n et . Bu t th e CDA a pplies br oa dly to th e en t ir e u n iv er se ofcy ber spa ce. A n d th e pu r pose of th e CDA is to pr otect ch ildr en fr om th epr im a r y effects of "in decen t '' a n d "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' speech , r a th erth a n a n y "secon da r y '' effect of su ch speech . T h u s, th e CDA is acon ten t-ba sed bla n ket r estr ict ion on speech , a n d, a s su ch , ca n n ot be"pr oper ly a n a ly zed a s a for m of t im e, pla ce, a n d m a n n er r eg u la t ion . ''4 7 5 U.S. , a t 4 6 , 1 0 6 S.Ct . , a t 9 2 8 . See a lso Boos v . Barry, 4 8 5 U.S.3 1 2 , 3 2 1 , 1 0 8 S.Ct . 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 3 , 9 9 L.Ed.2 d 3 3 3 (1 9 8 8 ) ("Reg u la t ion sth a t focu s on th e dir ect im pa ct of speech on it s a u dien ce'' a r e n otpr oper ly a n a ly zed u n der Renton); Fors yth County v . Nationalis tMovem ent, 5 0 5 U.S. 1 2 3 , 1 3 4 , 1 1 2 S.Ct . 2 3 9 5 , 2 4 0 3 , 1 2 0 L.Ed.2 d 1 0 1(1 9 9 2 ) ("Listen er s' r ea ct ion to speech is n ot a con ten t-n eu tr a l ba sis forr eg u la t ion '').

53

« up


13 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

V

T h ese pr eceden ts, th en , su r ely do n ot r equ ir e u s to u ph old th e CDAa n d a r e fu lly con sisten t w ith th e a pplica t ion of th e m ost st r in g en tr ev iew of it s pr ov ision s.

54

In Southeas tern Prom otions , Ltd. v . Conrad, 4 2 0 U.S. 5 4 6 , 5 5 7 , 9 5S.Ct . 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 5 -1 2 4 6 , 4 3 L.Ed.2 d 4 4 8 (1 9 7 5 ), w e obser v ed th a t "[e]a ch m ediu m of ex pr ession . . . m a y pr esen t it s ow n pr oblem s. '' T h u s,som e of ou r ca ses h a v e r ecog n ized specia l ju st ifica t ion s for r eg u la t ion ofth e br oa dca st m edia th a t a r e n ot a pplica ble to oth er spea ker s, see RedLion Broadcas ting Co. v . FCC, 3 9 5 U.S. 3 6 7 , 8 9 S.Ct . 1 7 9 4 , 2 3 L.Ed.2 d3 7 1 (1 9 6 9 ); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 4 3 8 U.S. 7 2 6 , 9 8 S.Ct . 3 0 2 6 ,5 7 L.Ed.2 d 1 0 7 3 (1 9 7 8 ). In th ese ca ses, th e Cou r t r elied on th e h istor yof ex ten siv e g ov er n m en t r eg u la t ion of th e br oa dca st m ediu m , see, e.g. ,Red Lion, 3 9 5 U.S. , a t 3 9 9 -4 0 0 , 8 9 S.Ct . , a t 1 8 1 1 -1 8 1 2 ; th e sca r city ofa v a ila ble fr equ en cies a t it s in cept ion , see, e.g. , Turner Broadcas tingSys tem , Inc. v . FCC, 5 1 2 U.S. 6 2 2 , 6 3 7 -6 3 8 , 1 1 4 S.Ct . 2 4 4 5 ,2 4 5 6 -2 4 5 7 , 1 2 9 L.Ed.2 d 4 9 7 (1 9 9 4 ); a n d it s "in v a siv e'' n a tu r e, seeSable Com m unications of Cal. , Inc. v . FCC, 4 9 2 U.S. 1 1 5 , 1 2 8 , 1 0 9 S.Ct .2 8 2 9 , 2 8 3 7 -2 8 3 8 , 1 0 6 L.Ed.2 d 9 3 (1 9 8 9 ).

55

T h ose fa ctor s a r e n ot pr esen t in cy ber spa ce. Neith er befor e n or a fterth e en a ctm en t of th e CDA h a v e th e v a st dem ocr a t ic for a of th e In ter n etbeen su bject to th e ty pe of g ov er n m en t su per v ision a n d r eg u la t ion th a th a s a t ten ded th e br oa dca st in du str y .33 Mor eov er , th e In ter n et is n ot a s"in v a siv e'' a s r a dio or telev ision . T h e Distr ict Cou r t specifica lly fou n dth a t " [c]om m u n ica t ion s ov er th e In ter n et do n ot "in v a de' a nin div idu a l's h om e or a ppea r on on e's com pu ter scr een u n bidden . User sseldom en cou n ter con ten t "by a cciden t . ''' 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t 8 4 4 (fin din g8 8 ). It a lso fou n d th a t " [a ]lm ost a ll sex u a lly ex plicit im a g es a r epr eceded by w a r n in g s a s to th e con ten t , '' a n d cited test im on y th a t""odds a r e slim ' th a t a u ser w ou ld com e a cr oss a sex u a lly ex plicit sig h tby a cciden t . '' Ibid.

56

W e dist in g u ish ed Pacifica in Sable, 4 9 2 U.S. , a t 1 2 8 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t2 8 3 7 -2 8 3 8 , on ju st th is ba sis. In Sable, a com pa n y en g a g ed in th ebu sin ess of offer in g sex u a lly or ien ted pr er ecor ded teleph on e m essa g es(popu la r ly kn ow n a s "dia l-a -por n '') ch a llen g ed th e con st itu t ion a lity ofa n a m en dm en t to th e Com m u n ica t ion s A ct th a t im posed a bla n ketpr oh ibit ion on in decen t a s w ell a s obscen e in ter sta te com m er cia lteleph on e m essa g es. W e h eld th a t th e sta tu te w a s con st itu t ion a l in sofa ra s it a pplied to obscen e m essa g es bu t in v a lid a s a pplied to in decen tm essa g es. In a t tem pt in g to ju st ify th e com plete ba n a n dcr im in a liza t ion of in decen t com m er cia l teleph on e m essa g es, th eGov er n m en t r elied on Pacifica, a r g u in g th a t th e ba n w a s n ecessa r y topr ev en t ch ildr en fr om g a in in g a ccess to su ch m essa g es. W e a g r eed th a t"th er e is a com pellin g in ter est in pr otect in g th e ph y sica l a n dpsy ch olog ica l w ell-bein g of m in or s'' w h ich ex ten ded to sh ieldin g th emfr om in decen t m essa g es th a t a r e n ot obscen e by a du lt sta n da r ds, 4 9 2U.S. , a t 1 2 6 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 6 -2 8 3 7 , bu t dist in g u ish ed ou r"em ph a t ica lly n a r r ow h oldin g '' in Pacifica beca u se it did n ot in v olv e acom plete ba n a n d beca u se it in v olv ed a differ en t m ediu m ofcom m u n ica t ion , id. , a t 1 2 7 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 7 . W e ex pla in ed th a t "th e

57

« up


14 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

V I

dia l-it m ediu m r equ ir es th e listen er to ta ke a ffir m a t iv e steps to r eceiv eth e com m u n ica t ion . '' Id. , a t 1 2 7 -1 2 8 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 7 . "Pla cin g ateleph on e ca ll, '' w e con t in u ed, "is n ot th e sa m e a s tu r n in g on a r a dioa n d bein g ta ken by su r pr ise by a n in decen t m essa g e. '' Id. , a t 1 2 8 , 1 0 9S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 7 .

Fin a lly , u n like th e con dit ion s th a t pr ev a iled w h en Con g r ess fir sta u th or ized r eg u la t ion of th e br oa dca st spectr u m , th e In ter n et ca nh a r dly be con sider ed a "sca r ce'' ex pr essiv e com m odity . It pr ov idesr ela t iv ely u n lim ited, low -cost ca pa city for com m u n ica t ion of a ll k in ds.T h e Gov er n m en t est im a tes th a t " [a ]s m a n y a s 4 0 m illion people u seth e In ter n et toda y , a n d th a t fig u r e is ex pected to g r ow to 2 0 0 m illionby 1 9 9 9 . ''34 T h is dy n a m ic, m u lt ifa ceted ca teg or y of com m u n ica t ionin clu des n ot on ly t r a dit ion a l pr in t a n d n ew s ser v ices, bu t a lso a u dio,v ideo, a n d st ill im a g es, a s w ell a s in ter a ct iv e, r ea l-t im e dia log u e.T h r ou g h th e u se of ch a t r oom s, a n y per son w ith a ph on e lin e ca nbecom e a tow n cr ier w ith a v oice th a t r eson a tes fa r th er th a n it cou ldfr om a n y soa pbox . T h r ou g h th e u se of W eb pa g es, m a il ex ploder s, a n dn ew sg r ou ps, th e sa m e in div idu a l ca n becom e a pa m ph leteer . A s th eDistr ict Cou r t fou n d, "th e con ten t on th e In ter n et is a s div er se a sh u m a n th ou g h t . '' 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t 8 4 2 (fin din g 7 4 ). W e a g r ee w ith it scon clu sion th a t ou r ca ses pr ov ide n o ba sis for qu a lify in g th e lev el ofFir st A m en dm en t scr u t in y th a t sh ou ld be a pplied to th is m ediu m .

58

Reg a r dless of w h eth er th e CDA is so v a g u e th a t it v iola tes th e FifthA m en dm en t , th e m a n y a m big u it ies con cer n in g th e scope of it scov er a g e r en der it pr oblem a t ic for pu r poses of th e Fir st A m en dm en t .For in sta n ce, ea ch of th e tw o pa r ts of th e CDA u ses a differ en t lin g u ist icfor m . T h e fir st u ses th e w or d "in decen t , '' 4 7 U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (a )(Su pp.1 9 9 7 ), w h ile th e secon d spea ks of m a ter ia l th a t "in con tex t ,depicts or descr ibes, in ter m s pa ten t ly offen siv e a s m ea su r ed bycon tem por a r y com m u n ity sta n da r ds, sex u a l or ex cr etor y a ct iv it ies oror g a n s, '' §2 2 3 (d). Giv en th e a bsen ce of a defin it ion of eith er ter m ,35

th is differ en ce in la n g u a g e w ill pr ov oke u n cer ta in t y a m on g spea ker sa bou t h ow th e tw o sta n da r ds r ela te to ea ch oth er 36 a n d ju st w h a t th eym ea n .37 Cou ld a spea ker con fiden t ly a ssu m e th a t a ser iou s discu ssiona bou t bir th con tr ol pr a ct ices, h om osex u a lity , th e Fir st A m en dm en tissu es r a ised by th e A ppen dix to ou r Pacifica opin ion , or th econ sequ en ces of pr ison r a pe w ou ld n ot v iola te th e CDA ? T h isu n cer ta in ty u n der m in es th e likelih ood th a t th e CDA h a s beenca r efu lly ta ilor ed to th e con g r ession a l g oa l of pr otect in g m in or s fr ompoten t ia lly h a r m fu l m a ter ia ls.

59

T h e v a g u en ess of th e CDA is a m a tter of specia l con cer n for tw or ea son s. Fir st , th e CDA is a con ten t-ba sed r eg u la t ion of speech . T h ev a g u en ess of su ch a r eg u la t ion r a ises specia l Fir st A m en dm en tcon cer n s beca u se of it s obv iou s ch illin g effect on fr ee speech . See, e.g. ,Gentile v . State Bar of Nev. , 5 0 1 U.S. 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 4 8 -1 0 5 1 , 1 1 1 S.Ct . 2 7 2 0 ,2 7 3 1 -2 7 3 3 , 1 1 5 L.Ed.2 d 8 8 8 (1 9 9 1 ). Secon d, th e CDA is a cr im in a lsta tu te. In a ddit ion to th e oppr obr iu m a n d st ig m a of a cr im in a lcon v ict ion , th e CDA th r ea ten s v iola tor s w ith pen a lt ies in clu din g u p totw o y ea r s in pr ison for ea ch a ct of v iola t ion . T h e sev er ity of cr im in a l

60

« up


15 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

sa n ct ion s m a y w ell ca u se spea ker s to r em a in silen t r a th er th a ncom m u n ica te ev en a r g u a bly u n la w fu l w or ds, idea s, a n d im a g es. See,e.g. , Dom brow s ki v . Pfis ter, 3 8 0 U.S. 4 7 9 , 4 9 4 , 8 5 S.Ct . 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 5 ,1 4 L.Ed.2 d 2 2 (1 9 6 5 ). A s a pr a ct ica l m a tter , th is in cr ea sed deter r en teffect , cou pled w ith th e "r isk of discr im in a tor y en for cem en t '' of v a g u er eg u la t ion s, poses g r ea ter Fir st A m en dm en t con cer n s th a n th oseim plica ted by th e civ il r eg u la t ion r ev iew ed in Denver Area Ed.Telecom m unications Cons ortium , Inc. v . FCC, 5 1 8 U.S. ----, 1 1 6 S.Ct .2 3 7 4 , 1 3 5 L.Ed.2 d 8 8 8 (1 9 9 6 ).

T h e Gov er n m en t a r g u es th a t th e sta tu te is n o m or e v a g u e th a n th eobscen ity sta n da r d th is Cou r t esta blish ed in Miller v . California, 4 1 3U.S. 1 5 , 9 3 S.Ct . 2 6 0 7 , 3 7 L.Ed.2 d 4 1 9 (1 9 7 3 ). Bu t th a t is n ot so. InMiller, th is Cou r t r ev iew ed a cr im in a l con v ict ion a g a in st a com m er cia lv en dor w h o m a iled br och u r es con ta in in g pictu r es of sex u a lly ex plicita ct iv it ies to in div idu a ls w h o h a d n ot r equ ested su ch m a ter ia ls. Id. , a t1 8 , 9 3 S.Ct . , a t 2 6 1 1 -2 6 1 2 . Ha v in g str u g g led for som e t im e toesta blish a defin it ion of obscen ity , w e set for th in Miller th e test forobscen ity th a t con tr ols to th is da y :

61

" (a ) w h eth er th e a v er a g e per son , a pply in g con tem por a r ycom m u n ity sta n da r ds w ou ld fin d th a t th e w or k, ta ken a s a w h ole,a ppea ls to th e pr u r ien t in ter est ; (b) w h eth er th e w or k depicts ordescr ibes, in a pa ten t ly offen siv e w a y , sex u a l con du ct specifica llydefin ed by th e a pplica ble sta te la w ; a n d (c) w h eth er th e w or k, ta ken a sa w h ole, la cks ser iou s liter a r y , a r t ist ic , polit ica l, or scien t ific v a lu e. ''Id. , a t 2 4 , 9 3 S.Ct . , a t 2 6 1 5 (in ter n a l qu ota t ion m a r ks a n d cita t ion som it ted).

62

Beca u se th e CDA 's "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' sta n da r d (a n d, w e a ssu m earguendo, it s sy n on y m ou s "in decen t '' sta n da r d) is on e pa r t of th eth r ee-pr on g Miller t est , th e Gov er n m en t r ea son s, it ca n n ot beu n con st itu t ion a lly v a g u e.

63

T h e Gov er n m en t 's a sser t ion is in cor r ect a s a m a tter of fa ct . T h esecon d pr on g of th e Miller t est -th e pu r por tedly a n a log ou s sta n da r d-con ta in s a cr it ica l r equ ir em en t th a t is om it ted fr om th e CDA : th a t th epr oscr ibed m a ter ia l be "specifica lly defin ed by th e a pplica ble sta tela w . '' T h is r equ ir em en t r edu ces th e v a g u en ess in h er en t in th eopen -en ded ter m "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a s u sed in th e CDA . Mor eov er , th eMiller defin it ion is lim ited to "sex u a l con du ct , '' w h er ea s th e CDA ex ten dsa lso to in clu de (1 ) "ex cr etor y a ct iv it ies'' a s w ell a s (2 ) "or g a n s'' of both asex u a l a n d ex cr etor y n a tu r e.

64

T h e Gov er n m en t 's r ea son in g is a lso fla w ed. Ju st beca u se a defin it ionin clu din g th r ee lim ita t ion s is n ot v a g u e, it does n ot follow th a t on e ofth ose lim ita t ion s, sta n din g by it self, is n ot v a g u e.38 Ea ch of Miller'sa ddit ion a l tw o pr on g s- (1 ) th a t , ta ken a s a w h ole, th e m a ter ia l a ppea lto th e "pr u r ien t '' in ter est , a n d (2 ) th a t it "la c[k] ser iou s liter a r y ,a r t ist ic , polit ica l, or scien t ific v a lu e''-cr it ica lly lim its th e u n cer ta insw eep of th e obscen ity defin it ion . T h e secon d r equ ir em en t ispa r t icu la r ly im por ta n t beca u se, u n like th e "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a n d"pr u r ien t in ter est '' cr iter ia , it is n ot ju dg ed by con tem por a r ycom m u n ity sta n da r ds. See Pope v . Illinois , 4 8 1 U.S. 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 , 1 0 7

65

« up


16 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

V II

S.Ct . 1 9 1 8 , 1 9 2 0 -1 9 2 1 , 9 5 L.Ed.2 d 4 3 9 (1 9 8 7 ). T h is "societa l v a lu e''r equ ir em en t , a bsen t in th e CDA , a llow s a ppella te cou r ts to im pose som elim ita t ion s a n d r eg u la r ity on th e defin it ion by set t in g , a s a m a tter ofla w , a n a t ion a l floor for socia lly r edeem in g v a lu e. T h e Gov er n m en t 'scon ten t ion th a t cou r ts w ill be a ble to g iv e su ch leg a l lim ita t ion s to th eCDA 's sta n da r ds is belied by Miller's ow n r a t ion a le for h a v in g ju r iesdeter m in e w h eth er m a ter ia l is "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a ccor din g tocom m u n ity sta n da r ds: th a t su ch qu est ion s a r e essen t ia lly on es offact.39

In con tr a st to Miller a n d ou r oth er pr ev iou s ca ses, th e CDA th u spr esen ts a g r ea ter th r ea t of cen sor in g speech th a t , in fa ct , fa lls ou tsideth e sta tu te's scope. Giv en th e v a g u e con tou r s of th e cov er a g e of th esta tu te, it u n qu est ion a bly silen ces som e spea ker s w h ose m essa g esw ou ld be en t it led to con st itu t ion a l pr otect ion . T h a t da n g er pr ov idesfu r th er r ea son for in sist in g th a t th e sta tu te n ot be ov er ly br oa d. T h eCDA 's bu r den on pr otected speech ca n n ot be ju st ified if it cou ld bea v oided by a m or e ca r efu lly dr a fted sta tu te.

66

W e a r e per su a ded th a t th e CDA la cks th e pr ecision t h a t th e Fir stA m en dm en t r equ ir es w h en a sta tu te r eg u la tes th e con ten t of speech . Inor der to den y m in or s a ccess to poten t ia lly h a r m fu l speech , th e CDAeffect iv ely su ppr esses a la r g e a m ou n t of speech th a t a du lts h a v e acon st itu t ion a l r ig h t to r eceiv e a n d to a ddr ess to on e a n oth er . T h a tbu r den on a du lt speech is u n a ccepta ble if less r est r ict iv e a lter n a t iv esw ou ld be a t lea st a s effect iv e in a ch iev in g th e leg it im a te pu r pose th a tth e sta tu te w a s en a cted to ser v e.

67

In ev a lu a t in g th e fr ee speech r ig h ts of a du lts, w e h a v e m a de itper fect ly clea r th a t " [s]ex u a l ex pr ession w h ich is in decen t bu t n otobscen e is pr otected by th e Fir st A m en dm en t . '' Sable, 4 9 2 U.S. , a t 1 2 6 ,1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 6 . See a lso Carey v . Population Services Int'l, 4 3 1 U.S.6 7 8 , 7 0 1 , 9 7 S.Ct . 2 0 1 0 , 2 0 2 4 , 5 2 L.Ed.2 d 6 7 5 (1 9 7 7 ) (" [W ]h er eobscen ity is n ot in v olv ed, w e h a v e con sisten t ly h eld th a t th e fa ct th a tpr otected speech m a y be offen siv e to som e does n ot ju st ify it ssu ppr ession ''). In deed, Pacifica it self a dm on ish ed th a t "th e fa ct th a tsociety m a y fin d speech offen siv e is n ot a su fficien t r ea son forsu ppr essin g it . '' 4 3 8 U.S. , a t 7 4 5 , 9 8 S.Ct . , a t 3 0 3 8 .

68

It is t r u e th a t w e h a v e r epea tedly r ecog n ized th e g ov er n m en ta lin ter est in pr otect in g ch ildr en fr om h a r m fu l m a ter ia ls. See Gins berg,3 9 0 U.S. , a t 6 3 9 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 8 0 ; Pacifica, 4 3 8 U.S. , a t 7 4 9 , 9 8S.Ct . , a t 3 0 4 0 . Bu t th a t in ter est does n ot ju st ify a n u n n ecessa r ilybr oa d su ppr ession of speech a ddr essed to a du lts. A s w e h a v e ex pla in ed,th e Gov er n m en t m a y n ot "r edu c[e] th e a du lt popu la t ion . . . to . . . on lyw h a t is fit for ch ildr en . '' Denver, 5 1 8 U.S. , a t ----, 1 1 6 S.Ct . , a t 2 3 9 3(in ter n a l qu ota t ion m a r ks om it ted) (qu ot in g Sable, 4 9 2 U.S. , a t 1 2 8 ,1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 7 -2 8 3 8 ).40 " [R]eg a r dless of th e st r en g th of th eg ov er n m en t 's in ter est '' in pr otect in g ch ildr en , " [t ]h e lev el of discou r ser ea ch in g a m a ilbox sim ply ca n n ot be lim ited to th a t w h ich w ou ld besu ita ble for a sa n dbox . '' Bolger v . Y oungs Drug Products Corp. , 4 6 3 U.S.6 0 , 7 4 -7 5 , 1 0 3 S.Ct . 2 8 7 5 , 2 8 8 4 -2 8 8 5 , 7 7 L.Ed.2 d 4 6 9 (1 9 8 3 ).

69

« up


17 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

T h e Distr ict Cou r t w a s cor r ect to con clu de th a t th e CDA effect iv elyr esem bles th e ba n on "dia l-a -por n '' in v a lida ted in Sable. 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t8 5 4 . In Sable, 4 9 2 U.S. , a t 1 2 9 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 8 , th is Cou r t r ejectedth e a r g u m en t th a t w e sh ou ld defer to th e con g r ession a l ju dg m en t th a tn oth in g less th a n a tota l ba n w ou ld be effect iv e in pr ev en t in gen ter pr isin g y ou n g ster s fr om g a in in g a ccess to in decen tcom m u n ica t ion s. Sable th u s m a de clea r th a t th e m er e fa ct th a t asta tu tor y r eg u la t ion of speech w a s en a cted for th e im por ta n t pu r pose ofpr otect in g ch ildr en fr om ex posu r e to sex u a lly ex plicit m a ter ia l doesn ot for eclose in qu ir y in to it s v a lidity .41 A s w e poin ted ou t la st T er m ,th a t in qu ir y em bodies a n "ov er -a r ch in g com m itm en t '' to m a ke su r eth a t Con g r ess h a s desig n ed it s sta tu te to a ccom plish it s pu r pose"w ith ou t im posin g a n u n n ecessa r ily g r ea t r estr ict ion on speech . ''Denver, 5 1 8 U.S. , a t ----, 1 1 6 S.Ct . , a t 2 3 8 5 .

70

In a r g u in g th a t th e CDA does n ot so dim in ish a du lt com m u n ica t ion ,th e Gov er n m en t r elies on th e in cor r ect fa ctu a l pr em ise th a tpr oh ibit in g a t r a n sm ission w h en ev er it is kn ow n th a t on e of it sr ecipien ts is a m in or w ou ld n ot in ter fer e w ith a du lt -to-a du ltcom m u n ica t ion . T h e fin din g s of th e Distr ict Cou r t m a ke clea r th a t th ispr em ise is u n ten a ble. Giv en th e size of th e poten t ia l a u dien ce for m ostm essa g es, in th e a bsen ce of a v ia ble a g e v er ifica t ion pr ocess, th e sen derm u st be ch a r g ed w ith kn ow in g th a t on e or m or e m in or s w ill likelyv iew it . Kn ow ledg e th a t , for in sta n ce, on e or m or e m em ber s of a1 0 0 -per son ch a t g r ou p w ill be m in or -a n d th er efor e t h a t it w ou ld be acr im e to sen d th e g r ou p a n in decen t m essa g e-w ou ld su r ely bu r dencom m u n ica t ion a m on g a du lts.42

71

T h e Distr ict Cou r t fou n d th a t a t th e t im e of t r ia l ex ist in g tech n olog ydid n ot in clu de a n y effect iv e m eth od for a sen der t o pr ev en t m in or sfr om obta in in g a ccess to it s com m u n ica t ion s on th e In ter n et w ith ou ta lso den y in g a ccess to a du lts. T h e Cou r t fou n d n o effect iv e w a y todeter m in e th e a g e of a u ser w h o is a ccessin g m a ter ia l th r ou g h e-m a il,m a il ex ploder s, n ew sg r ou ps, or ch a t r oom s. 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t 8 4 5(fin din g s 9 0 -9 4 ). A s a pr a ct ica l m a tter , th e Cou r t a lso fou n d th a t itw ou ld be pr oh ibit iv ely ex pen siv e for n on com m er cia l-a s w ell a s som ecom m er cia l-spea ker s w h o h a v e W eb sites to v er ify th a t th eir u ser s a r ea du lts. Id. , a t 8 4 5 -8 4 8 (fin din g s 9 5 -1 1 6 ).43 T h ese lim ita t ion s m u stin ev ita bly cu r ta il a sig n ifica n t a m ou n t of a du lt com m u n ica t ion on th eIn ter n et . By con tr a st , th e Distr ict Cou r t fou n d th a t " [d]espite it slim ita t ion s, cu r r en t ly a v a ila ble us er-bas ed softw a r e su g g ests th a t ar ea son a bly effect iv e m eth od by w h ich parents ca n pr ev en t th eirch ildr en fr om a ccessin g sex u a lly ex plicit a n d oth er m a ter ia l w h ichparents m a y believ e is in a ppr opr ia te for th eir ch ildr en w ill soon bew idely a v a ila ble. '' Id. , a t 8 4 2 (fin din g 7 3 ) (em ph a ses a dded).

72

T h e br ea dth of th e CDA 's cov er a g e is w h olly u n pr eceden ted. Un liketh e r eg u la t ion s u ph eld in Gins berg a n d Pacifica, th e scope of th e CDA isn ot lim ited to com m er cia l speech or com m er cia l en t it ies. It sopen -en ded pr oh ibit ion s em br a ce a ll n on pr ofit en t it ies a n d in div idu a lspost in g in decen t m essa g es or displa y in g th em on th eir ow n com pu ter sin th e pr esen ce of m in or s. T h e g en er a l, u n defin ed t er m s "in decen t '' a n d"pa ten t ly offen siv e'' cov er la r g e a m ou n ts of n on por n og r a ph ic m a ter ia lw ith ser iou s edu ca t ion a l or oth er v a lu e.44 Mor eov er , th e "com m u n ity

73

« up


18 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

V III

sta n da r ds'' cr iter ion a s a pplied to th e In ter n et m ea n s th a t a n ycom m u n ica t ion a v a ila ble to a n a t ion -w ide a u dien ce w ill be ju dg ed byth e sta n da r ds of th e com m u n ity m ost likely to be offen ded by th em essa g e.45 T h e r eg u la ted su bject m a tter in clu des a n y of th e sev en"dir ty w or ds'' u sed in th e Pa cifica m on olog u e, th e u se of w h ich th eGov er n m en t 's ex per t a ckn ow ledg ed cou ld con st itu te a felon y . See OlsenT est . , T r . V ol. V , 5 3 :1 6 -5 4 :1 0 . It m a y a lso ex ten d to discu ssion s a bou tpr ison r a pe or sa fe sex u a l pr a ct ices, a r t ist ic im a g es th a t in clu de n u desu bjects, a n d a r g u a bly th e ca r d ca ta log u e of th e Ca r n eg ie Libr a r y .

For th e pu r poses of ou r decision , w e n eed n eith er a ccept n or r eject th eGov er n m en t 's su bm ission th a t th e Fir st A m en dm en t does n ot for bid abla n ket pr oh ibit ion on a ll "in decen t '' a n d "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' m essa g escom m u n ica ted to a 1 7 -y ea r old-n o m a tter h ow m u ch v a lu e th em essa g e m a y con ta in a n d r eg a r dless of pa r en ta l a ppr ov a l. It is a t lea stclea r th a t th e st r en g th of th e Gov er n m en t 's in ter est in pr otect in gm in or s is n ot equ a lly st r on g th r ou g h ou t th e cov er a g e of th is br oa dsta tu te. Un der th e CDA , a pa r en t a llow in g h er 1 7 -y ea r -old to u se th efa m ily com pu ter to obta in in for m a t ion on th e In ter n et th a t sh e, in h erpa r en ta l ju dg m en t , deem s a ppr opr ia te cou ld fa ce a len g th y pr isonter m . See 4 7 U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (a )(2 ) (Su pp.1 9 9 7 ). Sim ila r ly , a pa r en tw h o sen t h is 1 7 -y ea r -old colleg e fr esh m a n in for m a t ion on bir th con tr olv ia e-m a il cou ld be in ca r cer a ted ev en th ou g h n eith er h e, h is ch ild, n ora n y on e in th eir h om e com m u n ity , fou n d th e m a ter ia l "in decen t '' or"pa ten t ly offen siv e, '' if th e colleg e tow n 's com m u n ity th ou g h toth er w ise.

74

T h e br ea dth of th is con ten t-ba sed r estr ict ion of speech im poses a nespecia lly h ea v y bu r den on th e Gov er n m en t to ex pla in w h y a lessr estr ict iv e pr ov ision w ou ld n ot be a s effect iv e a s th e CDA . It h a s n otdon e so. T h e a r g u m en ts in th is Cou r t h a v e r efer r ed to possiblea lter n a t iv es su ch a s r equ ir in g th a t in decen t m a ter ia l be "ta g g ed'' in aw a y th a t fa cilita tes pa r en ta l con tr ol of m a ter ia l com in g in to th eirh om es, m a kin g ex cept ion s for m essa g es w ith a r t ist ic or edu ca t ion a lv a lu e, pr ov idin g som e toler a n ce for pa r en ta l ch oice, a n d r eg u la t in gsom e por t ion s of th e In ter n et-su ch a s com m er cia l w eb sites-differ en t lyth a n oth er s, su ch a s ch a t r oom s. Pa r t icu la r ly in th e lig h t of th ea bsen ce of a n y deta iled fin din g s by th e Con g r ess, or ev en h ea r in g sa ddr essin g th e specia l pr oblem s of th e CDA , w e a r e per su a ded th a t th eCDA is n ot n a r r ow ly ta ilor ed if th a t r equ ir em en t h a s a n y m ea n in g a ta ll.

75

In a n a t tem pt to cu r ta il th e CDA 's fa cia l ov er br ea dth , th eGov er n m en t a dv a n ces th r ee a ddit ion a l a r g u m en ts for su sta in in g th eA ct 's a ffir m a t iv e pr oh ibit ion s: (1 ) th a t th e CDA is con st itu t ion a lbeca u se it lea v es open a m ple "a lter n a t iv e ch a n n els'' of com m u n ica t ion ;(2 ) th a t th e pla in m ea n in g of th e A ct 's "kn ow ledg e'' a n d "specificper son '' r equ ir em en t sig n ifica n t ly r estr icts it s per m issible a pplica t ion s;a n d (3 ) th a t th e A ct 's pr oh ibit ion s a r e "a lm ost a lw a y s'' lim ited tom a ter ia l la ckin g r edeem in g socia l v a lu e.

76

T h e Gov er n m en t fir st con ten ds th a t , ev en th ou g h th e CDA77

« up


19 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

IX

effect iv ely cen sor s discou r se on m a n y of th e In ter n et 's m oda lit ies-su cha s ch a t g r ou ps, n ew sg r ou ps, a n d m a il ex ploder s-it is n on eth elesscon st itu t ion a l beca u se it pr ov ides a "r ea son a ble oppor tu n ity '' forspea ker s to en g a g e in th e r estr icted speech on th e W or ld W ide W eb.Br ief for A ppella n ts 3 9 . T h is a r g u m en t is u n per su a siv e beca u se th eCDA r eg u la tes speech on th e ba sis of it s con ten t . A "t im e, pla ce, a n dm a n n er '' a n a ly sis is th er efor e in a pplica ble. See Cons olidated Edis on Co.of N.Y . v . Public Serv. Com m 'n of N.Y . , 4 4 7 U.S. 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 , 1 0 0 S.Ct .2 3 2 6 , 2 3 3 2 -2 3 3 3 , 6 5 L.Ed.2 d 3 1 9 (1 9 8 0 ). It is th u s im m a ter ia lw h eth er su ch speech w ou ld be fea sible on th e W eb (w h ich , a s th eGov er n m en t 's ow n ex per t a ckn ow ledg ed, w ou ld cost u p to $1 0 ,0 0 0 ifth e spea ker 's in ter ests w er e n ot a ccom m oda ted by a n ex ist in g W eb site,n ot in clu din g costs for da ta ba se m a n a g em en t a n d a g e v er ifica t ion ).T h e Gov er n m en t 's posit ion is equ iv a len t to a r g u in g th a t a sta tu te cou ldba n lea flets on cer ta in su bjects a s lon g a s in div idu a ls a r e fr ee to pu blishbooks. In in v a lida t in g a n u m ber of la w s th a t ba n n ed lea flet t in g on th estr eets regardles s of th eir con ten t-w e ex pla in ed th a t "on e is n ot to h a v eth e ex er cise of h is liber ty of ex pr ession in a ppr opr ia te pla ces a br idg edon th e plea th a t it m a y be ex er cised in som e oth er pla ce. '' Schneider v .State of N.J. (Tow n of Irvington), 3 0 8 U.S. 1 4 7 , 1 6 3 , 6 0 S.Ct . 1 4 6 ,1 5 1 -1 5 2 , 8 4 L.Ed. 1 5 5 (1 9 3 9 ).

T h e Gov er n m en t a lso a sser ts th a t th e "kn ow ledg e'' r equ ir em en t ofboth §§2 2 3 (a ) a n d (d), especia lly w h en cou pled w ith th e "specific ch ild''elem en t fou n d in §2 2 3 (d), sa v es th e CDA fr om ov er br ea dth . Beca u seboth sect ion s pr oh ibit th e dissem in a t ion of in decen t m essa g es on ly toper son s kn ow n to be u n der 1 8 , th e Gov er n m en t a r g u es, it does n otr equ ir e t r a n sm it ter s to "r efr a in fr om com m u n ica t in g in decen tm a ter ia l to a du lts; th ey n eed on ly r efr a in fr om dissem in a t in g su chm a ter ia ls to per son s th ey kn ow to be u n der 1 8 . '' Br ief for A ppella n ts 2 4 .

78

T h is a r g u m en t ig n or es th e fa ct th a t m ost In ter n et for a -in clu din gch a t r oom s, n ew sg r ou ps, m a il ex ploder s, a n d th e W eb-a r e open to a llcom er s. T h e Gov er n m en t 's a sser t ion th a t th e kn ow ledg e r equ ir em en tsom eh ow pr otects th e com m u n ica t ion s of a du lts is th er efor e u n ten a ble.Ev en th e st r on g est r ea din g of th e "specific per son '' r equ ir em en t of§2 2 3 (d) ca n n ot sa v e th e sta tu te. It w ou ld con fer br oa d pow er s ofcen sor sh ip, in th e for m of a "h eckler 's v eto, '' u pon a n y oppon en t ofin decen t speech w h o m ig h t sim ply log on a n d in for m th e w ou ld-bediscou r ser s th a t h is 1 7 -y ea r -old ch ild-a "specific per son . . . u n der 1 8y ea r s of a g e, '' 4 7 U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (d)(1 )(A ) (Su pp.1 9 9 7 )- w ou ld bepr esen t .

79

Fin a lly , w e fin d n o tex tu a l su ppor t for th e Gov er n m en t 's su bm issionth a t m a ter ia l h a v in g scien t ific , edu ca t ion a l, or oth er r edeem in g socia lv a lu e w ill n ecessa r ily fa ll ou tside th e CDA 's "pa ten t ly offen siv e'' a n d"in decen t '' pr oh ibit ion s. See a lso n . 3 7 , s upra.

80

T h e Gov er n m en t 's th r ee r em a in in g a r g u m en ts focu s on th e defen sespr ov ided in §2 2 3 (e)(5 ).46 Fir st , r ely in g on th e "g ood fa ith , r ea son a ble,effect iv e, a n d a ppr opr ia te a ct ion s'' pr ov ision , th e Gov er n m en t su g g eststh a t "ta g g in g '' pr ov ides a defen se th a t sa v es th e con st itu t ion a lity of th e

81

« up


20 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

X

A ct . T h e su g g est ion a ssu m es th a t t r a n sm it ter s m a y en code th eirin decen t com m u n ica t ion s in a w a y th a t w ou ld in dica t e th eir con ten ts,th u s per m it t in g r ecipien ts to block th eir r ecept ion w ith a ppr opr ia tesoftw a r e. It is th e r equ ir em en t th a t th e g ood fa ith a ct ion m u st be"effect iv e'' th a t m a kes th is defen se illu sor y . T h e Gov er n m en t r ecog n izesth a t it s pr oposed scr een in g softw a r e does n ot cu r r en t ly ex ist . Ev en if itdid, th er e is n o w a y to kn ow w h eth er a poten t ia l r ecipien t w ill a ctu a llyblock th e en coded m a ter ia l. W ith ou t th e im possible kn ow ledg e th a tev er y g u a r dia n in A m er ica is scr een in g for th e "ta g , '' th e t r a n sm it tercou ld n ot r ea son a bly r ely on it s a ct ion to be "effect iv e. ''

For it s secon d a n d th ir d a r g u m en ts con cer n in g defen ses-w h ich w eca n con sider tog eth er -th e Gov er n m en t r elies on th e la t ter h a lf of§2 2 3 (e)(5 ), w h ich a pplies w h en th e t r a n sm it ter h a s r estr icted a ccessby r equ ir in g u se of a v er ified cr edit ca r d or a du lt iden t ifica t ion . Su chv er ifica t ion is n ot on ly tech n olog ica lly a v a ila ble bu t a ctu a lly is u sedby com m er cia l pr ov ider s of sex u a lly ex plicit m a ter ia l. T h esepr ov ider s, th er efor e, w ou ld be pr otected by th e defen se. Un der th efin din g s of th e Distr ict Cou r t , h ow ev er , it is n ot econ om ica lly fea siblefor m ost n on com m er cia l spea ker s to em ploy su ch v er ifica t ion .A ccor din g ly , th is defen se w ou ld n ot sig n ifica n t ly n a r r ow th e sta tu te'sbu r den on n on com m er cia l speech . Ev en w ith r espect t o th ecom m er cia l por n og r a ph er s th a t w ou ld be pr otected by th e defen se, th eGov er n m en t fa iled to a ddu ce a n y ev iden ce th a t th ese v er ifica t iontech n iqu es a ctu a lly pr eclu de m in or s fr om posin g a s a du lts.47 Giv enth a t th e r isk of cr im in a l sa n ct ion s "h ov er s ov er ea ch con ten t pr ov ider ,like th e pr ov er bia l sw or d of Da m ocles, ''48 th e Distr ict Cou r t cor r ect lyr efu sed to r ely on u n pr ov en fu tu r e tech n olog y to sa v e th e sta tu te. T h eGov er n m en t th u s fa iled to pr ov e th a t th e pr offer ed defen se w ou ldsig n ifica n t ly r edu ce th e h ea v y bu r den on a du lt speech pr odu ced by th epr oh ibit ion on offen siv e displa y s.

82

W e a g r ee w ith th e Distr ict Cou r t 's con clu sion th a t th e CDA pla ces a nu n a ccepta bly h ea v y bu r den on pr otected speech , a n d th a t th e defen sesdo n ot con st itu te th e sor t of "n a r r ow ta ilor in g '' t h a t w ill sa v e a noth er w ise pa ten t ly in v a lid u n con st itu t ion a l pr ov ision . In Sable, 4 9 2U.S. , a t 1 2 7 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 7 , w e r em a r ked th a t th e speechr estr ict ion a t issu e th er e a m ou n ted to ""bu r n [in g ] th e h ou se to r oa stth e pig . ''' T h e CDA , ca st in g a fa r da r ker sh a dow ov er fr ee speech ,th r ea ten s to tor ch a la r g e seg m en t of th e In ter n et com m u n ity .

83

A t or a l a r g u m en t , th e Gov er n m en t r elied h ea v ily on it s u lt im a tefa ll-ba ck posit ion : If th is Cou r t sh ou ld con clu de t h a t th e CDA isin su fficien t ly ta ilor ed, it u r g ed, w e sh ou ld sa v e t h e sta tu te'scon st itu t ion a lity by h on or in g th e sev er a bility cla u se, see 4 7 U.S.C.§6 0 8 , a n d con str u in g n on sev er a ble ter m s n a r r ow ly . In on ly on er espect is th is a r g u m en t a ccepta ble.

84

A sev er a bility cla u se r equ ir es tex tu a l pr ov ision s t h a t ca n be sev er ed.W e w ill follow §6 0 8 's g u ida n ce by lea v in g con st itu t ion a l tex tu a lelem en ts of th e sta tu te in ta ct in th e on e pla ce w h er e th ey a r e, in fa ct ,sev er a ble. T h e "in decen cy '' pr ov ision , 4 7 U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (a )

85

« up


21 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

(Su pp.1 9 9 7 ), a pplies to "a n y com m en t , r equ est , su g g est ion , pr oposa l,im a g e, or oth er com m u n ica t ion w h ich is obs cene or indecent. ''—(Em ph a sis a dded.) A ppellees do n ot ch a llen g e th e a pplica t ion of th esta tu te to obscen e speech , w h ich , th ey a ckn ow ledg e, ca n be ba n n edtota lly beca u se it en joy s n o Fir st A m en dm en t pr otect ion . See Miller,4 1 3 U.S. , a t 1 8 , 9 3 S.Ct . , a t 2 6 1 1 -2 6 1 2 . A s set for th by th e sta tu te, th er estr ict ion of "obscen e'' m a ter ia l en joy s a tex tu a l m a n ifesta t ionsepa r a te fr om th a t for "in decen t '' m a ter ia l, w h ich w e h a v e h eldu n con st itu t ion a l. T h er efor e, w e w ill sev er th e ter m "or in decen t '' fr omth e sta tu te, lea v in g th e r est of §2 2 3 (a ) sta n din g . In n o oth er r espect ,h ow ev er , ca n §2 2 3 (a ) or §2 2 3 (d) be sa v ed by su ch a tex tu a l su r g er y .

T h e Gov er n m en t a lso dr a w s on a n a ddit ion a l, less t r a dit ion a l a spectof th e CDA 's sev er a bility c la u se, 4 7 U.S.C. , §6 0 8 , w h ich a sks a n yr ev iew in g cou r t th a t h olds th e sta tu te fa cia lly u n con st itu t ion a l n ot toin v a lida te th e CDA in a pplica t ion to "oth er per son s or cir cu m sta n ces''th a t m ig h t be con st itu t ion a lly per m issible. It fu r t h er in v okes th isCou r t 's a dm on it ion th a t , a bsen t "cou n ter v a ilin g con sider a t ion s, '' asta tu te sh ou ld "be decla r ed in v a lid to th e ex ten t it r ea ch es too fa r , bu toth er w ise left in ta ct . '' Brockett v . Spokane Arcades , Inc. , 4 7 2 U.S. 4 9 1 ,5 0 3 -5 0 4 , 1 0 5 S.Ct . 2 7 9 4 , 2 8 0 1 -2 8 0 2 , 8 6 L.Ed.2 d 3 9 4 (1 9 8 5 ). T h er ea r e tw o fla w s in th is a r g u m en t .

86

Fir st , th e sta tu te th a t g r a n ts ou r ju r isdict ion for th is ex peditedr ev iew , 4 7 U.S.C.A . §5 6 1 (Su pp.1 9 9 7 ), lim its th a t ju r isdict ion a l g r a n tto a ct ion s ch a llen g in g th e CDA "on it s fa ce. '' Con sisten t w ith §5 6 1 , th epla in t iffs w h o br ou g h t th is su it a n d th e th r ee-ju dg e pa n el th a t decidedit t r ea ted it a s a fa cia l ch a llen g e. W e h a v e n o a u t h or ity , in th ispa r t icu la r postu r e, to con v er t th is lit ig a t ion in to a n "a s-a pplied''ch a llen g e. Nor , g iv en th e v a st a r r a y of pla in t iffs, th e r a n g e of th eirex pr essiv e a ct iv it ies, a n d th e v a g u en ess of th e sta tu te, w ou ld it bepr a ct ica ble to lim it ou r h oldin g to a ju dicia lly defin ed set of specifica pplica t ion s.

87

Secon d, on e of th e "cou n ter v a ilin g con sider a t ion s'' m en t ion ed inBrockett is pr esen t h er e. In con sider in g a fa cia l ch a llen g e, th is Cou r tm a y im pose a lim it in g con str u ct ion on a sta tu te on ly if it is "r ea dilysu scept ible'' to su ch a con str u ct ion . Virginia v. Am erican Books eller'sAs s n. , Inc. , 4 8 4 U.S. 3 8 3 , 3 9 7 , 1 0 8 S.Ct . 6 3 6 , 6 4 5 , 9 8 L.Ed.2 d 7 8 2(1 9 8 8 ). See a lso Erznoznik , v . Jacks onville, 4 2 2 U.S. 2 0 5 , 2 1 6 , 9 5 S.Ct .2 2 6 8 , 2 2 7 6 , 4 5 L.Ed.2 d 1 2 5 (1 9 7 5 ) ("r ea dily su bject '' to n a r r ow in gcon str u ct ion ). T h e open -en ded ch a r a cter of th e CDA pr ov ides n og u ida n ce w h a t ev er for lim it in g it s cov er a g e.

88

T h is ca se is th er efor e u n like th ose in w h ich w e h a v e con str u ed asta tu te n a r r ow ly beca u se th e tex t or oth er sou r ce of con g r ession a lin ten t iden t ified a clea r lin e th a t th is Cou r t cou ld dr a w . Cf. , e.g. ,Brockett, 4 7 2 U.S. , a t 5 0 4 -5 0 5 , 1 0 5 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 0 2 (in v a lida t in gobscen ity sta tu te on ly to th e ex ten t th a t w or d "lu st '' w a s a ctu a lly oreffect iv ely ex cised fr om sta tu te); United States v . Grace, 4 6 1 U.S. 1 7 1 ,1 8 0 -1 8 3 , 1 0 3 S.Ct . 1 7 0 2 , 1 7 0 8 -1 7 1 0 , 7 5 L.Ed.2 d 7 3 6 (1 9 8 3 )(in v a lida t in g feder a l sta tu te ba n n in g ex pr essiv e displa y s on ly in sofa ra s it ex ten ded to pu blic sidew a lks w h en clea r lin e cou ld be dr a w nbetw een sidew a lks a n d oth er g r ou n ds th a t com por ted w ith

89

« up


22 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

X I

con g r ession a l pu r pose of pr otect in g th e bu ildin g , g r ou n ds, a n d peopleth er ein ). Ra th er , ou r decision in United States v . National Treas uryEm ployees Union, 5 1 3 U.S. 4 5 4 , 4 7 9 , n . 2 6 , 1 1 5 S.Ct . 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 1 9 , n .2 6 , 1 3 0 L.Ed.2 d 9 6 4 (1 9 9 5 ), is a pplica ble. In th a t ca se, w e declin ed to"dr a [w ] on e or m or e lin es betw een ca teg or ies of speech cov er ed by a nov er ly br oa d sta tu te, w h en Con g r ess h a s sen t in con sisten t sig n a ls a s tow h er e th e n ew lin e or lin es sh ou ld be dr a w n '' beca u se doin g so "in v olv esa fa r m or e ser iou s in v a sion of th e leg isla t iv e dom a in . ''49 T h is Cou r t"w ill n ot r ew r ite a . . . la w to con for m it to con st itu t ion a lr equ ir em en ts. '' Am erican Books ellers , 4 8 4 U.S. , a t 3 9 7 , 1 0 8 S.Ct . , a t6 4 5 .50

In th is Cou r t , th ou g h n ot in th e Distr ict Cou r t , th e Gov er n m en ta sser ts th a t-in a ddit ion to it s in ter est in pr otect in g ch ildr en -its "[e]qu a lly sig n ifica n t '' in ter est in foster in g th e g r ow th of th e In ter n etpr ov ides a n in depen den t ba sis for u ph oldin g th e con st itu t ion a lity ofth e CDA . Br ief for A ppella n ts 1 9 . T h e Gov er n m en t a ppa r en t ly a ssu m esth a t th e u n r eg u la ted a v a ila bility of "in decen t '' a n d "pa ten t ly offen siv e''m a ter ia l on th e In ter n et is dr iv in g cou n t less cit izen s a w a y fr om th em ediu m beca u se of th e r isk of ex posin g th em selv es or th eir ch ildr en toh a r m fu l m a ter ia l.

90

W e fin d th is a r g u m en t sin g u la r ly u n per su a siv e. T h e dr a m a t icex pa n sion of th is n ew m a r ketpla ce of idea s con tr a dicts th e fa ctu a l ba sisof th is con ten t ion . T h e r ecor d dem on str a tes th a t th e g r ow th of th eIn ter n et h a s been a n d con t in u es to be ph en om en a l. A s a m a tter ofcon st itu t ion a l t r a dit ion , in th e a bsen ce of ev iden ce to th e con tr a r y , w epr esu m e th a t g ov er n m en ta l r eg u la t ion of th e con ten t of speech is m or elikely to in ter fer e w ith th e fr ee ex ch a n g e of idea s th a n to en cou r a g e it .T h e in ter est in en cou r a g in g fr eedom of ex pr ession in a dem ocr a t icsociety ou tw eig h s a n y th eor et ica l bu t u n pr ov en ben efit of cen sor sh ip.

91

For th e for eg oin g r ea son s, th e ju dg m en t of th e dist r ict cou r t isa ffir m ed.

92

It is s o ordered.93

Ju st ice O'CONNOR, w ith w h om T HE CHIEF JUST ICE join s, con cu r r in gin th e ju dg m en t in pa r t a n d dissen t in g in pa r t .

94

I w r ite sepa r a tely to ex pla in w h y I v iew th e Com m u n ica t ion sDecen cy A ct of 1 9 9 6 (CDA ) a s lit t le m or e th a n a n a t t em pt by Con g r essto cr ea te "a du lt zon es'' on th e In ter n et . Ou r pr eceden t in dica tes th a t th ecr ea t ion of su ch zon es ca n be con st itu t ion a lly sou n d. Despite th esou n dn ess of it s pu r pose, h ow ev er , por t ion s of th e CDA a r eu n con st itu t ion a l beca u se th ey st r a y fr om th e blu epr in t ou r pr ior ca sesh a v e dev eloped for con str u ct in g a "zon in g la w '' th a t pa ssescon st itu t ion a l m u ster .

95

A ppellees br in g a fa cia l ch a llen g e to th r ee pr ov ision s of th e CDA . T h efir st , w h ich th e Cou r t descr ibes a s th e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission ''pr ov ision , m a kes it a cr im e to kn ow in g ly t r a n sm it a n obscen e orin decen t m essa g e or im a g e to a per son th e sen der kn ow s is u n der 1 8

96

« up


23 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

y ea r s old. 4 7 U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (a )(1 )(B) (Ma y 1 9 9 6 Su pp.). W h a t th eCou r t cla ssifies a s a sin g le ""pa ten t ly offen siv e displa y ''' pr ov ision , seeante, a t __, is in r ea lity tw o sepa r a te pr ov ision s. T h e fir st of th esem a kes it a cr im e to kn ow in g ly sen d a pa ten t ly offen siv e m essa g e orim a g e to a specific per son u n der th e a g e of 1 8 ("specific per son ''pr ov ision ). §2 2 3 (d)(1 )(A ). T h e secon d cr im in a lizes th e displa y ofpa ten t ly offen siv e m essa g es or im a g es "in a [n y ] m a n n er a v a ila ble'' tom in or s ("displa y '' pr ov ision ). §2 2 3 (d)(1 )(B). Non e of th ese pr ov ision spu r por ts to keep in decen t (or pa ten t ly offen siv e) m a ter ia l a w a y fr oma du lts, w h o h a v e a Fir st A m en dm en t r ig h t to obta in th is speech . SableCom m unications of Cal. , Inc. v . FCC, 4 9 2 U.S. 1 1 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . 2 8 2 9 ,2 8 3 6 , 1 0 6 L.Ed.2 d 9 3 (1 9 8 9 ) ("Sex u a l ex pr ession w h ich is in decen tbu t n ot obscen e is pr otected by th e Fir st A m en dm en t ''). T h u s, th eu n den ia ble pu r pose of th e CDA is to seg r eg a te in decen t m a ter ia l on th eIn ter n et in to cer ta in a r ea s th a t m in or s ca n n ot a ccess. See S. Con f. Rep.No. 1 0 4 -2 3 0 , p. 1 8 9 (1 9 9 6 ) (CDA im poses "a ccess r estr ict ion s . . . topr otect m in or s fr om ex posu r e to in decen t m a ter ia l'') .

T h e cr ea t ion of "a du lt zon es'' is by n o m ea n s a n ov el con cept . Sta tesh a v e lon g den ied m in or s a ccess to cer ta in esta blish m en ts fr equ en tedby a du lts.1 Sta tes h a v e a lso den ied m in or s a ccess to speech deem ed tobe "h a r m fu l to m in or s. ''2 T h e Cou r t h a s pr ev iou sly su sta in ed su chzon in g la w s, bu t on ly if th ey r espect th e Fir st A m en dm en t r ig h ts ofa du lts a n d m in or s. T h a t is to sa y , a zon in g la w is v a lid if (i) it does n otu n du ly r estr ict a du lt a ccess to th e m a ter ia l; a n d (ii) m in or s h a v e n oFir st A m en dm en t r ig h t to r ea d or v iew th e ba n n ed m a ter ia l. A sa pplied to th e In ter n et a s it ex ists in 1 9 9 7 , th e "displa y '' pr ov ision a n dsom e a pplica t ion s of th e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission '' a n d "specific per son ''pr ov ision s fa il to a dh er e to th e fir st of th ese lim it in g pr in ciples byr estr ict in g a du lts' a ccess to pr otected m a ter ia ls in cer ta incir cu m sta n ces. Un like th e Cou r t , h ow ev er , I w ou ld in v a lida te th epr ov ision s on ly in th ose cir cu m sta n ces.

97

* Ou r ca ses m a ke clea r th a t a "zon in g '' la w is v a lid on ly if a du lts a r est ill a ble to obta in th e r eg u la ted speech . If th ey ca n n ot , th e la w doesm or e th a n sim ply keep ch ildr en a w a y fr om speech th ey h a v e n o r ig h tto obta in -it in ter fer es w ith th e r ig h ts of a du lts t o obta incon st itu t ion a lly pr otected speech a n d effect iv ely "r edu ce[s] th e a du ltpopu la t ion . . . to r ea din g on ly w h a t is fit for ch ildr en . '' Butler v .Michigan, 3 5 2 U.S. 3 8 0 , 3 8 3 , 7 7 S.Ct . 5 2 4 , 5 2 6 , 1 L.Ed.2 d 4 1 2(1 9 5 7 ). T h e Fir st A m en dm en t does n ot toler a te su ch in ter fer en ce. Seeid. , a t 3 8 3 , 7 7 S.Ct . , a t 5 2 6 (st r ik in g dow n a Mich ig a n cr im in a l la wba n n in g sa le of books-to m in or s or a du lts-th a t con t a in ed w or ds orpictu r es th a t ""ten de[d] to . . . cor r u p[t ] th e m or a ls of y ou th '''); SableCom m unications , s upra (in v a lida t in g feder a l la w th a t m a de it a cr im eto t r a n sm it in decen t , bu t n on obscen e, com m er cia l teleph on e m essa g esto m in or s a n d a du lts); Bolger v . Y oungs Drug Products Corp. , 4 6 3 U.S.6 0 , 7 4 , 1 0 3 S.Ct . 2 8 7 5 , 2 8 8 4 , 7 7 L.Ed.2 d 4 6 9 (1 9 8 3 ) (st r ik in g dow na feder a l la w pr oh ibit in g th e m a ilin g of u n solicited a dv er t isem en ts forcon tr a cept iv es). If th e la w does n ot u n du ly r estr ict a du lts' a ccess tocon st itu t ion a lly pr otected speech , h ow ev er , it m a y be v a lid. InGins berg v . New Y ork , 3 9 0 U.S. 6 2 9 , 6 3 4 , 8 8 S.Ct . 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 -1 2 7 8 ,2 0 L.Ed.2 d 1 9 5 (1 9 6 8 ), for ex a m ple, th e Cou r t su sta in ed a New Y or kla w th a t ba r r ed stor e ow n er s fr om sellin g por n og r a ph ic m a g a zin es to

98

« up


24 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

m in or s in pa r t beca u se a du lts cou ld st ill bu y th ose m a g a zin es.

T h e Cou r t in Gins berg con clu ded th a t th e New Y or k la w cr ea ted acon st itu t ion a lly a dequ a te a du lt zon e sim ply beca u se, on it s fa ce, itden ied a ccess on ly to m in or s. T h e Cou r t did n ot qu est ion -a n d th er efor en ecessa r ily a ssu m ed-th a t a n a du lt zon e, on ce cr ea ted, w ou ld su cceed inpr eser v in g a du lts' a ccess w h ile den y in g m in or s' a ccess to th e r eg u la tedspeech . Befor e toda y , th er e w a s n o r ea son to qu est ion th is a ssu m pt ion ,for th e Cou r t h a s pr ev iou sly on ly con sider ed la w s t h a t oper a ted in th eph y sica l w or ld, a w or ld th a t w ith tw o ch a r a cter ist ics th a t m a ke itpossible to cr ea te "a du lt zon es'': g eog r a ph y a n d iden t ity . See Lessig ,Rea din g th e Con st itu t ion in Cy ber spa ce, 4 5 Em or y L.J. 8 6 9 , 8 8 6(1 9 9 6 ). A m in or ca n see a n a du lt da n ce sh ow on ly if h e en ter s a nesta blish m en t th a t pr ov ides su ch en ter ta in m en t . A n d sh ou ld h ea t tem pt to do so, th e m in or w ill n ot be a ble to con cea l com pletely h isiden t ity (or , con sequ en t ly , h is a g e). T h u s, th e tw in ch a r a cter ist ics ofg eog r a ph y a n d iden t ity en a ble th e esta blish m en t 's pr opr ietor topr ev en t ch ildr en fr om en ter in g th e esta blish m en t , bu t to let a du ltsin side.

99

T h e electr on ic w or ld is fu n da m en ta lly differ en t . Beca u se it is n o m or eth a n th e in ter con n ect ion of electr on ic pa th w a y s, cy ber spa ce a llow sspea ker s a n d listen er s to m a sk th eir iden t it ies. Cy ber spa ce u n den ia blyr eflects som e for m of g eog r a ph y ; ch a t r oom s a n d W eb sites, forex a m ple, ex ist a t fix ed "loca t ion s'' on th e In ter n et . Sin ce u ser s ca ntr a n sm it a n d r eceiv e m essa g es on th e In ter n et w ith ou t r ev ea lin ga n y th in g a bou t th eir iden t it ies or a g es, see Lessig , s upra, a t 9 0 1 ,h ow ev er , it is n ot cu r r en t ly possible to ex clu de per son s fr om a ccessin gcer ta in m essa g es on th e ba sis of th eir iden t ity .

100

Cy ber spa ce differ s fr om th e ph y sica l w or ld in a n oth er ba sic w a y :Cy ber spa ce is m a llea ble. T h u s, it is possible to con str u ct ba r r ier s incy ber spa ce a n d u se th em to scr een for iden t ity , m a kin g cy ber spa cem or e like th e ph y sica l w or ld a n d, con sequ en t ly , m or e a m en a ble tozon in g la w s. T h is t r a n sfor m a t ion of cy ber spa ce is a lr ea dy u n der w a y .Lessig , s upra, a t 8 8 8 -8 8 9 . Id. , a t 8 8 7 (cy ber spa ce "is m ov in g . . . fr oma r ela t iv ely u n zon ed pla ce to a u n iv er se th a t is ex tr a or din a r ily w ellzon ed''). In ter n et spea ker s (u ser s w h o post m a ter ia l on th e In ter n et)h a v e beg u n to zon e cy ber spa ce it self th r ou g h th e u se of "g a tew a y ''tech n olog y . Su ch tech n olog y r equ ir es In ter n et u ser s to en terin for m a t ion a bou t th em selv es-per h a ps a n a du lt iden t ifica t ion n u m beror a cr edit ca r d n u m ber -befor e th ey ca n a ccess cer t a in a r ea s ofcy ber spa ce, 9 2 9 F.Su pp. 8 2 4 , 8 4 5 (E.D.Pa .1 9 9 6 ), m u ch like a bou n cerch ecks a per son 's dr iv er 's licen se befor e a dm it t in g h im to a n ig h tclu b.In ter n et u ser s w h o a ccess in for m a t ion h a v e n ot a t tem pted to zon ecy ber spa ce it self, bu t h a v e t r ied to lim it th eir ow n pow er to a ccessin for m a t ion in cy ber spa ce, m u ch a s a pa r en t con tr ols w h a t h erch ildr en w a tch on telev ision by in sta llin g a lock box . T h is u ser -ba sedzon in g is a ccom plish ed th r ou g h th e u se of scr een in g softw a r e (su ch a sCy ber Pa tr ol or Su r fW a tch ) or br ow ser s w ith scr een in g ca pa bilit ies,both of w h ich sea r ch a ddr esses a n d tex t for key w or ds th a t a r ea ssocia ted w ith "a du lt '' sites a n d, if th e u ser w ish es, blocks a ccess tosu ch sites. Id. , a t 8 3 9 -8 4 2 . T h e Pla t for m for In ter n et Con ten t Select ion(PICS) pr oject is desig n ed to fa cilita te u ser -ba sed zon in g by

101

« up


25 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

en cou r a g in g In ter n et spea ker s to r a te th e con ten t of th eir speech u sin gcodes r ecog n ized by a ll scr een in g pr og r a m s. Id. , a t 8 3 8 -8 3 9 .

Despite th is pr og r ess, th e t r a n sfor m a t ion of cy ber spa ce is n otcom plete. A lth ou g h g a tew a y tech n olog y h a s been a v a ila ble on th eW or ld W ide W eb for som e t im e n ow , id. , a t 8 4 5 ; Shea v. Reno, 9 3 0F.Su pp. 9 1 6 , 9 3 3 -9 3 4 (S.D.N.Y .1 9 9 6 ), it is n ot a v a ila ble to all W ebspea ker s, 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t 8 4 5 -8 4 6 , a n d is ju st n ow becom in gtech n olog ica lly fea sible for ch a t r oom s a n d USENET n ew sg r ou ps, Br ieffor Feder a l Pa r t ies 3 7 -3 8 . Ga tew a y tech n olog y is n ot u biqu itou s incy ber spa ce, a n d beca u se w ith ou t it "th er e is n o m ea n s of a g ev er ifica t ion , '' cy ber spa ce st ill r em a in s la r g ely u n zon ed-a n du n zon ea ble. 9 2 9 F.Su pp., a t 8 4 6 ; Shea, s upra, a t 9 3 4 . User -ba sedzon in g is a lso in it s in fa n cy . For it to be effect iv e, (i) a n a g r eed-u poncode (or "ta g '') w ou ld h a v e to ex ist ; (ii) scr een in g softw a r e or br ow ser sw ith scr een in g ca pa bilit ies w ou ld h a v e to be a ble t o r ecog n ize th e "ta g '';a n d (iii) th ose pr og r a m s w ou ld h a v e to be w idely a v a ila ble-a n d w idelyu sed-by In ter n et u ser s. A t pr esen t , n on e of th ese con dit ion s is t r u e.Scr een in g softw a r e "is n ot in w ide u se toda y '' a n d "on ly a h a n dfu l ofbr ow ser s h a v e scr een in g ca pa bilit ies. '' Shea, s upra, a t 9 4 5 -9 4 6 . T h er eis, m or eov er , n o a g r eed-u pon "ta g '' for th ose pr og r a m s to r ecog n ize. 9 2 9F.Su pp., a t 8 4 8 ; Shea, s upra, a t 9 4 5 .

102

A lth ou g h th e pr ospects for th e ev en tu a l zon in g of t h e In ter n et a ppea rpr om isin g , I a g r ee w ith th e Cou r t th a t w e m u st ev a lu a te th econ st itu t ion a lity of th e CDA a s it a pplies to th e In ter n et a s it ex iststoda y . Ante, a t __. Giv en th e pr esen t sta te of cy ber spa ce, I a g r ee w ithth e Cou r t th a t th e "displa y '' pr ov ision ca n n ot pa ss m u ster . Un t ilg a tew a y tech n olog y is a v a ila ble th r ou g h ou t cy ber spa ce, a n d it is n otin 1 9 9 7 , a spea ker ca n n ot be r ea son a bly a ssu r ed th a t th e speech h edispla y s w ill r ea ch on ly a du lts beca u se it is im possible to con fin e speechto a n "a du lt zon e. '' T h u s, th e on ly w a y for a spea ker to a v oid lia bilityu n der th e CDA is to r efr a in com pletely fr om u sin g in decen t speech . Bu tth is for ced silen ce im pin g es on th e Fir st A m en dm en t r ig h t of a du lts tom a ke a n d obta in th is speech a n d, for a ll in ten ts a n d pu r poses,"r edu ce[s] th e a du lt popu la t ion [on th e In ter n et] t o r ea din g on ly w h a tis fit for ch ildr en . '' Butler, 3 5 2 U.S. , a t 3 8 3 , 7 7 S.Ct . , a t 5 2 6 . A s ar esu lt , th e "displa y '' pr ov ision ca n n ot w ith sta n d scr u t in y . A ccor d,Sable Com m unications , 4 9 2 U.S. , a t 1 2 6 -1 3 1 , 1 0 9 S.Ct . , a t 2 8 3 6 -2 8 3 9 ;Bolger v. Y oungs Drug Products Corp. , 4 6 3 U.S. , a t 7 3 -7 5 , 1 0 3 S.Ct . , a t2 8 8 3 -2 8 8 5 .

103

T h e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission '' a n d "specific per son '' pr ov ision s pr esen ta closer issu e, for th ey a r e n ot u n con st itu t ion a l in a ll of th eira pplica t ion s. A s discu ssed a bov e, th e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission ''pr ov ision m a kes it a cr im e to t r a n sm it kn ow in g ly a n in decen t m essa g eto a per son th e sen der kn ow s is u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e. 4 7 U.S.C.A .§2 2 3 (a )(1 )(B) (Ma y 1 9 9 6 Su pp.). T h e "specific per son '' pr ov isionpr oscr ibes th e sa m e con du ct , a lth ou g h it does n ot a s ex plicit ly r equ ir eth e sen der to kn ow th a t th e in ten ded r ecipien t of h is in decen t m essa g eis a m in or . §2 2 3 (d)(1 )(A ). A ppella n t u r g es th e Cou r t to con str u e th epr ov ision to im pose su ch a kn ow ledg e r equ ir em en t , see Br ief for Feder a lPa r t ies 2 5 -2 7 , a n d I w ou ld do so. See Edw ard J. DeBartolo Corp. v .Florida Gulf Coas t Building & Cons tr. Trades Council, 4 8 5 U.S. 5 6 8 , 5 7 5 ,

104

« up


26 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

1 0 8 S.Ct . 1 3 9 2 , 1 3 9 7 , 9 9 L.Ed.2 d 6 4 5 (1 9 8 8 ) (" [W ]h er e a n oth er w isea ccepta ble con str u ct ion of a sta tu te w ou ld r a ise ser iou s con st itu t ion a lpr oblem s, th e Cou r t w ill con str u e th e sta tu te to a v oid su ch pr oblem su n less su ch con str u ct ion is pla in ly con tr a r y to th e in ten t of Con g r ess'').

So con str u ed, both pr ov ision s a r e con st itu t ion a l a s a pplied to acon v er sa t ion in v olv in g on ly a n a du lt a n d on e or m or e m in or s-e.g. ,w h en a n a du lt spea ker sen ds a n e-m a il kn ow in g th e a ddr essee is am in or , or w h en a n a du lt a n d m in or con v er se by th em selv es or w ithoth er m in or s in a ch a t r oom . In th is con tex t , th ese pr ov ision s a r e n odiffer en t fr om th e la w w e su sta in ed in Gins berg. Restr ict in g w h a t th ea du lt m a y sa y to th e m in or s in n o w a y r estr icts th e a du lt 's a bility tocom m u n ica te w ith oth er a du lts. He is n ot pr ev en ted fr om spea kin gin decen t ly to oth er a du lts in a ch a t r oom (beca u se th er e a r e n o oth era du lts pa r t icipa t in g in th e con v er sa t ion ) a n d h e r em a in s fr ee to sen din decen t e-m a ils to oth er a du lts. T h e r elev a n t u n iv er se con ta in s on lyon e a du lt , a n d th e a du lt in th a t u n iv er se h a s th e pow er to r efr a in fr omu sin g in decen t speech a n d con sequ en t ly to keep a ll su ch speech w ith inth e r oom in a n "a du lt '' zon e.

105

T h e a n a log y to Gins berg br ea ks dow n , h ow ev er , w h en m or e th a n on ea du lt is a pa r ty to th e con v er sa t ion . If a m in or en ter s a ch a t r oomoth er w ise occu pied by a du lts, th e CDA effect iv ely r equ ir es th e a du lts inth e r oom to stop u sin g in decen t speech . If th ey did n ot , th ey cou ld bepr osecu ted u n der th e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission '' a n d "specific per son ''pr ov ision s for a n y in decen t sta tem en ts th ey m a ke to th e g r ou p, sin ceth ey w ou ld be t r a n sm it t in g a n in decen t m essa g e to specific per son s,on e of w h om is a m in or . A ccor d, ante, a t __. T h e CDA is th er efor e a kinto a la w th a t m a kes it a cr im e for a bookstor e ow n er to sellpor n og r a ph ic m a g a zin es to a n y on e on ce a m in or en ter s h is stor e. Ev ena ssu m in g su ch a la w m ig h t be con st itu t ion a l in th e ph y sica l w or ld a s ar ea son a ble a lter n a t iv e to ex clu din g m in or s com pletely fr om th e stor e,th e a bsen ce of a n y m ea n s of ex clu din g m in or s fr om ch a t r oom s incy ber spa ce r estr icts th e r ig h ts of a du lts to en g a g e in in decen t speech inth ose r oom s. T h e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission '' a n d "specific per son ''pr ov ision s sh a r e th is defect .

106

Bu t th ese tw o pr ov ision s do n ot in fr in g e on a du lts' speech in allsitu a t ion s. A n d a s discu ssed below , I do n ot fin d t h a t th e pr ov ision s a r eov er br oa d in th e sen se th a t th ey r estr ict m in or s' a ccess to a su bsta n t ia la m ou n t of speech th a t m in or s h a v e th e r ig h t to r ea d a n d v iew .A ccor din g ly , th e CDA ca n be a pplied con st itu t ion a lly in som esitu a t ion s. Nor m a lly , th is fa ct w ou ld r equ ir e th e Cou r t to r eject adir ect fa cia l ch a llen g e. United States v . Salerno, 4 8 1 U.S. 7 3 9 , 7 4 5 ,1 0 7 S.Ct . 2 0 9 5 , 2 1 0 0 , 9 5 L.Ed.2 d 6 9 7 (1 9 8 7 ) ("A fa cia l ch a llen g e to aleg isla t iv e A ct [su cceeds on ly if] th e ch a llen g er . . . esta blish [es] th a tn o set of cir cu m sta n ces ex ists u n der w h ich th e A ct w ou ld be v a lid'').A ppellees' c la im a r ises u n der th e Fir st A m en dm en t , h ow ev er , a n d th eya r g u e th a t th e CDA is fa cia lly in v a lid beca u se it is "su bsta n t ia llyov er br oa d''-th a t is, it "sw eeps too br oa dly . . . [a n d] pen a liz[es] asu bsta n t ia l a m ou n t of speech th a t is con st itu t ion a lly pr otected, ''Fors yth County v . Nationalis t Movem ent, 5 0 5 U.S. 1 2 3 , 1 3 0 , 1 1 2 S.Ct .2 3 9 5 , 2 4 0 1 , 1 2 0 L.Ed.2 d 1 0 1 (1 9 9 2 ). See Br ief for A ppellees A m er ica nLibr a r y A ssocia t ion et a l. 4 8 ; Br ief for A ppellees A m er ica n Civ il

107

« up


27 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

II

Liber t ies Un ion et a l. 3 9 -4 1 . I a g r ee w ith th e Cou r t th a t th e pr ov ision sa r e ov er br oa d in th a t th ey cov er a n y a n d a ll com m u n ica t ion s betw eena du lts a n d m in or s, r eg a r dless of h ow m a n y a du lts m ig h t be pa r t of th ea u dien ce to th e com m u n ica t ion .

T h is con clu sion does n ot en d th e m a tter , h ow ev er . W h er e, a s h er e,"th e pa r t ies ch a llen g in g th e sta tu te a r e th ose w h o desir e to en g a g e inpr otected speech th a t th e ov er br oa d sta tu te pu r por t s to pu n ish . . .[t ]h e sta tu te m a y for th w ith be decla r ed in v a lid to th e ex ten t th a t itr ea ch es too fa r , bu t oth er w ise left in ta ct . '' Brockett v . Spokane Arcades ,Inc. , 4 7 2 U.S. 4 9 1 , 5 0 4 , 1 0 5 S.Ct . 2 7 9 4 , 2 8 0 2 , 8 6 L.Ed.2 d 3 9 4(1 9 8 5 ). T h er e is n o qu est ion th a t Con g r ess in ten ded to pr oh ibit cer ta incom m u n ica t ion s betw een on e a du lt a n d on e or m or e m in or s. See 4 7U.S.C.A . §2 2 3 (a )(1 )(B) (Ma y 1 9 9 6 Su pp.) (pu n ish in g " [w ]h oev er . . .in it ia tes th e t r a n sm ission of [a n y in decen t com m u n ica t ion ] kn ow in g lyth a t th e r ecipien t of th e com m u n ica t ion is u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e'');§2 2 3 (d)(1 )(A ) (pu n ish in g " [w ]h oev er . . . sen d[s] to a specific per son orper son s u n der 1 8 y ea r s of a g e [a pa ten t ly offen siv e m essa g e]''). T h er e isa lso n o qu est ion th a t Con g r ess w ou ld h a v e en a cted a n a r r ow er v er sionof th ese pr ov ision s h a d it kn ow n a br oa der v er sion w ou ld be decla r edu n con st itu t ion a l. 4 7 U.S.C. §6 0 8 ("If . . . th e a pplica t ion [of a n ypr ov ision of th e CDA ] to a n y per son or cir cu m sta n ce is h eld in v a lid, . . .th e a pplica t ion of su ch pr ov ision to oth er per son s or cir cu m sta n cessh a ll n ot be a ffected th er eby ''). I w ou ld th er efor e su sta in th e "in decen cytr a n sm ission '' a n d "specific per son '' pr ov ision s to th e ex ten t th ey a pplyto th e t r a n sm ission of In ter n et com m u n ica t ion s w h er e th e pa r tyin it ia t in g th e com m u n ica t ion kn ow s th a t a ll of th e r ecipien ts a r em in or s.

108

W h eth er th e CDA su bsta n t ia lly in ter fer es w ith th e Fir st A m en dm en tr ig h ts of m in or s, a n d th er eby r u n s a fou l of th e secon d ch a r a cter ist ic ofv a lid zon in g la w s, pr esen ts a c loser qu est ion . In Gins berg, th e New Y or kla w w e su sta in ed pr oh ibited th e sa le to m in or s of m a g a zin es th a t w er e"h a r m fu l to m in or s. '' Un der th a t la w , a m a g a zin e w a s "h a r m fu l tom in or s'' on ly if it w a s obscen e a s to m in or s. 3 9 0 U.S. , a t 6 3 2 -6 3 3 , 8 8S.Ct . , a t 1 2 7 6 -1 2 7 7 . Not in g th a t obscen e speech is n ot pr otected by th eFir st A m en dm en t , Roth v . United States , 3 5 4 U.S. 4 7 6 , 4 8 5 , 7 7 S.Ct .1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 9 , 1 L.Ed.2 d 1 4 9 8 (1 9 5 7 ), a n d th a t New Y or k w a scon st itu t ion a lly fr ee to a dju st th e defin it ion of obscen ity for m in or s,3 9 0 U.S. , a t 6 3 8 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 7 9 -1 2 8 0 , th e Cou r t con clu ded th a tth e la w did n ot "in v a d[e] th e a r ea of fr eedom of ex pr essioncon st itu t ion a lly secu r ed to m in or s. '' Id. , a t 6 3 7 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 7 9 . NewY or k th er efor e did n ot in fr in g e u pon th e Fir st A m en dm en t r ig h ts ofm in or s. Cf. Erznoznik v . Jacks onville, 4 2 2 U.S. 2 0 5 , 2 1 3 , 9 5 S.Ct .2 2 6 8 , 2 2 7 4 -2 2 7 5 , 4 5 L.Ed.2 d 1 2 5 (1 9 7 5 ) (st r ik in g dow n cityor din a n ce th a t ba n n ed n u dity th a t w a s n ot "obscen e ev en a s tom in or s'').

109

T h e Cou r t n eith er "a ccept[s] n or r eject [s]'' th e a r g u m en t th a t th eCDA is fa cia lly ov er br oa d beca u se it su bsta n t ia lly in ter fer es w ith th eFir st A m en dm en t r ig h ts of m in or s. Ante, a t __. I w ou ld r eject it .Gins berg esta blish ed th a t m in or s m a y con st itu t ion a lly be den ied a ccess

110

« up


28 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

to m a ter ia l th a t is obscen e a s to m in or s. A s Gins berg ex pla in ed,m a ter ia l is obscen e a s to m in or s if it (i) is "pa ten t ly offen siv e topr ev a ilin g sta n da r ds in th e a du lt com m u n ity a s a w h ole w ith r espectto w h a t is su ita ble . . . for m in or s''; (ii) a ppea ls to th e pr u r ien t in ter estof m in or s; a n d (iii) is "u t ter ly w ith ou t r edeem in g socia l im por ta n ce form in or s. '' 3 9 0 U.S. , a t 6 3 3 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 7 6 . Beca u se th e CDA den iesm in or s th e r ig h t to obta in m a ter ia l th a t is "pa ten t ly offen siv e''-ev en ifit h a s som e r edeem in g v a lu e for m in or s a n d ev en if it does n ot a ppea l toth eir pr u r ien t in ter ests-Con g r ess' r eject ion of th e Gins berg "h a r m fu l tom in or s'' sta n da r d m ea n s th a t th e CDA cou ld ba n som e speech th a t is"in decen t '' ( i.e. , "pa ten t ly offen siv e'') bu t th a t is n ot obscen e a s tom in or s.

I do n ot den y th is possibility , bu t to pr ev a il in a fa cia l ch a llen g e, it isn ot en ou g h for a pla in t iff to sh ow "som e'' ov er br ea dth . Ou r ca sesr equ ir e a pr oof of "r ea l'' a n d "su bsta n t ia l'' ov er br ea dth , Broadrick v .Oklahom a, 4 1 3 U.S. 6 0 1 , 6 1 5 , 9 3 S.Ct . 2 9 0 8 , 2 9 1 7 -2 9 1 8 , 3 7 L.Ed.2 d8 3 0 (1 9 7 3 ), a n d a ppellees h a v e n ot ca r r ied th eir bu r den in th is ca se.In m y v iew , th e u n iv er se of speech con st itu t ion a lly pr otected a s tom in or s bu t ba n n ed by th e CDA -i.e. , th e u n iv er se of m a ter ia l th a t is"pa ten t ly offen siv e, '' bu t w h ich n on eth eless h a s som e r edeem in g v a lu efor m in or s or does n ot a ppea l to th eir pr u r ien t in t er est -is a v er y sm a llon e. A ppellees cite n o ex a m ples of speech fa llin g w ith in th is u n iv er sea n d do n ot a t tem pt to ex pla in w h y th a t u n iv er se is su bsta n t ia l "inr ela t ion to th e sta tu te's pla in ly leg it im a te sw eep. '' Ibid. T h a t th e CDAm ig h t den y m in or s th e r ig h t to obta in m a ter ia l th a t h a s som e "v a lu e, ''see ante, a t __-__, is la r g ely beside th e poin t . W h ile discu ssion s a bou tpr ison r a pe or n u de a r t , see ibid. , m a y h a v e som e r edeem in g edu ca t ionv a lu e for adults , th ey do n ot n ecessa r ily h a v e a n y su ch v a lu e form inors , a n d u n der Gins berg, m in or s on ly h a v e a Fir st A m en dm en tr ig h t to obta in pa ten t ly offen siv e m a ter ia l th a t h a s "r edeem in g socia lim por ta n ce for m inors , '' 3 9 0 U.S. , a t 6 3 3 , 8 8 S.Ct . , a t 1 2 7 6 (em ph a sisa dded). T h er e is a lso n o ev iden ce in th e r ecor d to su ppor t th econ ten t ion th a t "m a n y [e]-m a il t r a n sm ission s fr om a n a du lt to a m in ora r e con v er sa t ion s betw een fa m ily m em ber s, '' ante, a t __, n . 3 2 , a n d n osu ppor t for th e leg a l pr oposit ion th a t su ch speech is a bsolu tely im m u n efr om r eg u la t ion . A ccor din g ly , in m y v iew , th e CDA does n ot bu r den asu bsta n t ia l a m ou n t of m in or s' con st itu t ion a lly pr ot ected speech .

111

T h u s, th e con st itu t ion a lity of th e CDA a s a zon in g la w h in g es on th eex ten t to w h ich it su bsta n t ia lly in ter fer es w ith th e Fir st A m en dm en tr ig h ts of a du lts. Beca u se th e r ig h ts of a du lts a r e in fr in g ed on ly by th e"displa y '' pr ov ision a n d by th e "in decen cy t r a n sm ission '' a n d "specificper son '' pr ov ision s a s a pplied to com m u n ica t ion s in v olv in g m or e th a non e a du lt , I w ou ld in v a lida te th e CDA on ly to th a t ex ten t . In sofa r a s th e"in decen cy t r a n sm ission '' a n d "specific per son '' pr ov ision s pr oh ibit th eu se of in decen t speech in com m u n ica t ion s betw een a n a du lt a n d on e orm or e m in or s, h ow ev er , th ey ca n a n d sh ou ld be su sta in ed. T h e Cou r tr ea ch es a con tr a r y con clu sion , a n d fr om th a t h oldin g th a t Ir espect fu lly dissen t .

112

Th e sy l l abu s con sti tu tes n o part of th e opin ion of th e Cou rt bu t h as been

prepared by th e R eporter of Decision s for th e con v en ien ce of th e reader. See

*

« up


29 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

Unite d S tate s v. De troit Timbe r & Lumbe r Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 , 26 S.Ct. 282, 287,

50 L.Ed. 499.

" Con gress sh al l m ake n o l aw . . . abridgin g th e freedom of speech .'' U.S. Con st.,

A m dt. 1.

1

Th e Cou rt m ade 410 fin din gs, in cl u din g 356 paragraph s of th e parties'

stipu l ation an d 54 fin din gs based on ev iden ce recei ved in open cou rt. See 929

F.Su pp. at 830, n . 9, 842, n . 15.

2

A n acron y m for th e n etwork dev el oped by th e A dv an ced R esearch Project

A gen cy .

3

I d., a t 844 (fin din g 81).4

I d., a t 831 (fin din g 3).5

I d., a t 835 (fin din g 27).6

I d., a t 842 (fin din g 74).7

I d., a t 836 (fin din g 36).8

" Web pu bl i sh in g i s sim pl e en ou gh th at th ou san ds of in div idu al u sers an d

sm al l com m u n ity organ ization s are u sin g th e Web to pu bl i sh th eir own

person al "h om e pages,' th e equ ival en t of in div idu al i zed n ewsl etters abou t th e

person or organ ization , wh ich are av ai l abl e to ev ery on e on th e Web.'' I d., a t 837

(fin din g 42).

9

I d., a t 838 (fin din g 46).10

I d., a t 844 (fin din g 82).11

I bid. (fin din g 86).12


I d., a t 848 (fin din g 117).14

I d., a t 844-845 (fin din g 88).15

I bid.16

I d., a t 845 (fin din g 89).17

I d., a t 842 (fin din g 72).18


I d., a t 845 (fin din g 90): "A n e-m ai l address prov ides n o au th ori tative

in form ation abou t th e addressee, wh o m ay u se an e-m ai l "a l ias' or an

an on y m ou s rem ai l er . Th ere i s a l so n o u n iversal or rel iabl e l i stin g of e-m ai l

addresses an d correspon din g n am es or tel eph on e n u m bers, an d an y su ch

20

« up


30 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

l i stin g wou l d be or rapidl y becom e in com pl ete. For th ese reason s, th ere i s n o

rel iabl e way in m an y in stan ces for a sen der to kn ow i f th e e-m ai l recipien t i s an

adu l t or a m in or. Th e di ffi cu l ty of e-m ai l age v eri fi cation i s com pou n ded for

m ai l expl oders su ch as l i stserv s, wh ich au tom atica l l y sen d in form ation to a l l

e-m ai l addresses on a sen der 's l i st. Gov ern m en t expert Dr. Ol sen agreed th at n o

cu rren t tech n ol ogy cou l d giv e a speaker assu ran ce th at on l y adu l ts were l i sted

in a particu l ar m ai l expl oder 's m ai l in g l i st.''


I d., a t 846 (fin din g 102).22

I d., a t 847 (fin din gs 104-106):

"A t l east som e, i f n ot a l m ost a l l , n on -com m ercia l organ ization s, su ch as th e

A CLU, Stop Prison er R ape or Cri ti ca l Path A IDS Project, regard ch argin g

l i sten ers to access th eir speech as con trary to th ei r goal s of m akin g th eir

m ateria l s av ai l abl e to a wide au dien ce free of ch arge.

...

Th ere i s ev iden ce su ggestin g th at adu l t u sers, particu l arl y casu al Web

browsers, wou l d be discou raged from retr iev in g in form ation th at requ ired u se

of a credi t card or password. A n drew A n ker testi fied th at HotWired h as receiv ed

m an y com pl ain ts from i ts m em bers abou t HotWired's registration sy stem ,

wh ich requ ires on l y th at a m em ber su ppl y a n am e, e-m ai l address an d

sel f-created password. Th ere i s con cern by com m erci a l con ten t prov iders th at

age veri fi cation requ irem en ts wou l d decrease adv erti sin g an d rev en u e becau se

adverti sers depen d on a dem on stration th at th e si tes are widel y avai l abl e an d

frequ en tl y v i si ted.''

23

See Exon A m en dm en t N o. 1268, 141 Con g. R ec. S8120 (Ju n e 9, 1995). See a l so id.,

at S8087. Th is am en dm en t, as rev ised, becam e §502 of th e Com m u n ication s A ct

of 1996, 110 Stat. 133, 47 U.S.C.A . §§223(a)-(e) (Su pp.1997). Som e Mem bers of th e

Hou se of R epresen tatives opposed th e Exon A m en dm en t becau se th ey th ou gh t i t

"possibl e for ou r paren ts n ow to ch i l d-proof th e fam i l y com pu ter wi th th ese

produ cts av ai l abl e in th e priv ate sector.'' Th ey a l so th ou gh t th e Sen ate's

approach wou l d "in vol ve th e Federal Govern m en t spen din g vast su m s of m on ey

try in g to defin e el u sive term s th at are goin g to l ead to a fl ood of l egal ch al l en ges

wh i l e ou r kids are u n protected.'' Th ese Mem bers offered an am en dm en t

in ten ded as a su bsti tu te for th e Exon A m en dm en t, bu t in stead en acted as an

addi tion al section of th e A ct en ti tl ed "On l in e Fam i l y Em powerm en t.'' See 110

Stat. 137 , 47 U.S.C.A . §230 (Su pp.1997); 141 Con g. R ec. H8468-H8472. N o

h earin gs were h el d on th e prov ision s th at becam e l aw. See S.R ep. N o. 104-23

(1995), p. 9. A fter th e Sen ate adopted th e Exon am en dm en t, h owever, i ts

Ju diciary Com m ittee did con du ct a on e-day h earin g on "Cy berporn an d

Ch i l dren .'' In h is open in g statem en t at th at h earin g, Sen ator Leah y observed:

It rea l l y stru ck m e in y ou r open in g statem en t wh en y ou m en tion ed, Mr.

Ch airm an , th at i t i s th e fi rst ev er h earin g, an d y ou are absol u tel y r igh t. A n d

y et we h ad a m ajor debate on th e fl oor, passed l egi sl ation overwh el m in gl y on a

su bject in vol v in g th e In tern et, l egisl ation th at cou l d dram atica l l y

ch an ge-som e wou l d say ev en wreak h av oc-on th e In tern et. Th e Sen ate wen t in

wi l l y -n i l l y , passed l egisl ation , an d n ev er on ce h ad a h earin g, n ever on ce h ad a

discu ssion oth er th an an h ou r or so on th e fl oor.'' Cy berporn an d Ch i l dren : Th e

Scope of th e Probl em , Th e State of th e Tech n ol ogy , an d th e N eed for

Con gression al A ction , Hearin g on S. 892 before th e Sen ate Com m ittee on th e

Ju diciary , 104th Con g., 1st Sess., 7 -8 (1995).

24

« up


31 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

A l th ou gh th e Gov ern m en t an d th e dissen t break §223(d)(1) in to two separate

"paten tl y offen siv e'' an d "displ ay '' prov ision s, we fol l ow th e con v en tion of both

parties bel ow, as wel l th e Distr ict Cou rt's order an d opin ion , in describin g

§223(d)(1) as on e prov ision .

25

In fu l l , §223(e)(5) prov ides:

(5) It i s a defen se to a prosecu tion u n der su bsecti on (a)(1)(B) or (d) of th is

section , or u n der su bsection (a)(2) of th is section wi th respect to th e u se of a

faci l i ty for an activ i ty u n der su bsection (a)(1)(B) of th is section th at a person -

(A ) h as taken , in good fa i th , reason abl e, effective, an d appropriate action s

u n der th e ci rcu m stan ces to restr ict or prev en t access by m in ors to a

com m u n ication speci fied in su ch su bsection s, wh ich m ay in vol ve an y

appropriate m easu res to restr ict m in ors from su ch com m u n ication s, in cl u din g

an y m eth od wh ich i s feasibl e u n der av ai l abl e tech n ol ogy ; or

(B) h as restr icted access to su ch com m u n ication by requ irin g u se of a v eri fied

credi t card, debi t accou n t, adu l t access code, or adu l t person al iden ti fi cation

n u m ber.''

26

A m erican Civ i l Liberties Un ion ; Hu m an R igh ts Watch ; El ectron ic Privacy

In form ation Cen ter; El ectron ic Fron tier Fou n dation ; Jou rn al i sm Edu cation

A ssociation ; Com pu ter Profession al s for Socia l R espon sibi l i ty ; N ation al

Wri ters Un ion ; Cl arin et Com m u n ication s Corp.; In sti tu te for Gl obal

Com m u n ication s; Stop Prison er R ape; A IDS Edu cation Gl obal In form ation

Sy stem ; Bibl ioby tes; Qu eer R esou rces Directory ; Cri ti ca l Path A IDS Project, In c.;

Wi l dcat Press, In c.; Decl an McCu l l agh dba Ju stice on Cam pu s; Brock Meeks dba

Cy berwire Dispatch ; Joh n Troy er dba Th e Safer Sex Page; Jon ath an Wal l ace dba

Th e Eth ica l Spectacl e; an d Pl an n ed Paren th ood Federation of A m erica , In c.

27

A m erican Library A ssociation ; A m erica On l in e, In c.; A m erican Booksel l ers

A ssociation , In c.; A m erican Booksel l ers Fou n dation for Free Expression ;

A m erican Society of N ewspaper Edi tors; A ppl e Com pu ter, In c.; A ssociation of

A m erican Pu bl i sh ers, In c.; A ssociation of Pu bl i sh ers, Edi tors an d Wri ters;

Ci ti zen s In tern et Em powerm en t Coal i tion ; Com m ercia l In tern et Exch an ge

A ssociation ; Com pu Serv e In corporated; Fam i l ies A gain st In tern et Cen sorsh ip;

Freedom to R ead Fou n dation , In c.; Heal th Scien ces Libraries Con sortiu m ;

Hotwired V en tu res LLC; In teractiv e Digi ta l Software A ssociation ; In teractive

Serv ices A ssociation ; Magazin e Pu bl i sh ers of A m erica; Microsoft Corporation ;

Th e Microsoft N etwork, L.L. C.; N ation al Press Ph otograph ers A ssociation ;

N etcom On -Lin e Com m u n ication Serv ices, In c.; N ewspaper A ssociation of

A m erica; Opn et, In c.; Prodigy Serv ices Com pan y ; Society of Profession al

Jou rn al i sts; Wired V en tu res, Ltd.

28

110 Stat. 142-143, n ote fol l owin g 47 U.S.C.A . §223 (Su pp.1997).29

See a l so 929 F.Su pp., a t 877: "Fou r rel ated ch aracteristi cs of In tern et

com m u n ication h av e a tran scen den t im portan ce to ou r sh ared h ol din g th at th e

CDA is u n con sti tu tion al on i ts face. We expl a in th ese ch aracteristi cs in ou r

Fin din gs of fact abov e, an d I on l y reh earse th em briefl y h ere. Fi rst, th e In tern et

presen ts v ery l ow barriers to en try . Secon d, th ese barriers to en try are iden tica l

for both speakers an d l i sten ers. Th ird, as a resu l t of th ese l ow barriers,

astou n din gl y div erse con ten t i s avai l abl e on th e In tern et. Fou rth , th e In tern et

prov ides sign i fi can t access to a l l wh o wish to speak in th e m ediu m , an d ev en

creates a rel ativ e pari ty am on g speakers.'' A ccordi n g to Ju dge Dal zel l , th ese

ch aracteristi cs an d th e rest of th e Distr ict Cou rt's fin din gs "l ead to th e

30

« up


32 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

con cl u sion th at Con gress m ay n ot regu l ate in decen cy on th e In tern et at a l l .''

I bid. Becau se appel l ees do n ot press th is argu m en t before th is Cou rt, we do n ot

con sider i t. A ppel l ees a l so do n ot dispu te th at th e Gov ern m en t gen eral l y h as a

com pel l in g in terest in protectin g m in ors from "in decen t'' an d "paten tl y

offen sive'' speech .

390 U.S., a t 639, 88 S.Ct., a t 1280. We qu oted from Prince v. Massachuse tts, 321

U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944): "It i s cardin al wi th u s th at

th e cu stody , care an d n u rtu re of th e ch i l d reside fi rst in th e paren ts, wh ose

prim ary fu n ction an d freedom in cl u de preparation for obl igation s th e state can

n ei th er su ppl y n or h in der.''

31

Given th e l ikel ih ood th at m an y E-m ai l tran sm ission s from an adu l t to a m in or

are con versation s between fam i l y m em bers, i t i s th erefore in correct for th e

dissen t to su ggest th at th e prov ision s of th e CDA , even in th is n arrow area , "are

n o di fferen t from th e l aw we su sta in ed in Ginsbe rg. '' Post, a t __.

32

Cf. Pacifica Foundation v. FCC, 556 F.2d 9, 36 (C.A .D.C.1977) (Levan th al , J.,

dissen tin g), rev 'd, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57

L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978). Wh en Pacifica was decided, g iv en th at radio station s were

al l owed to operate on l y pu rsu an t to federal l i cen se, an d th at Con gress h ad

en acted l egisl ation proh ibi tin g l i cen sees from broadcastin g in decen t speech ,

th ere was a r i sk th at m em bers of th e radio au dien ce m igh t in fer som e sort of

offi cia l or societa l approv al of wh atever was h eard over th e radio, see 556 F.2d,

at 37 , n . 18. N o su ch r i sk atten ds m essages received th rou gh th e In tern et, wh ich

is n ot su perv ised by an y federal agen cy .

33

Ju ris. Statem en t 3 (ci tin g 929 F.Su pp., a t 831 (fin din g 3)).34

" In decen t'' does n ot ben efi t from an y textu al em bel l i sh m en t at a l l . "Paten tl y

offen sive'' i s qu al i fied on l y to th e exten t th at i t in v ol v es "sexu al or excretory

activ i ties or organ s'' taken "in con text'' an d "m easu red by con tem porary

com m u n ity stan dards.''

35

See Gozlon-Pe re tz v. Unite d S tate s, 498 U.S. 395, 404, 111 S.Ct. 840, 846-847, 112

L.Ed.2d 919 (1991) ("Wh ere Con gress in cl u des particu l ar l an gu age in on e

section of a statu te bu t om its i t in an oth er section of th e sam e A ct, i t i s gen eral l y

presu m ed th at Con gress acts in ten tion al l y an d pu rposel y in th e disparate

in cl u sion an d excl u sion '') (in tern al qu otation m arks om itted).

36

Th e statu te does n ot in dicate wh eth er th e "paten tl y offen siv e'' an d "in decen t''

determ in ation s sh ou l d be m ade wi th respect to m in ors or th e popu l ation as a

wh ol e. Th e Govern m en t asserts th at th e appropriate stan dard i s "wh at i s

su i tabl e m ateria l for m in ors.'' R epl y Brief for A ppel l an ts 18, n . 13 (ci tin g

Ginsbe rg v. Ne w York, 390 U.S. 629, 633, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1276-1277, 20 L.Ed.2d 195

(1968)). Bu t th e Con ferees expressl y rejected am en dm en ts th at wou l d h av e

im posed su ch a "h arm fu l to m in ors'' stan dard. See S. Con f. R ep. N o. 104-230, p.

189 (1996) (S.Con f.R ep.), 142 Con g. R ec. H1145, H1165-1166 (Feb. 1, 1996). Th e

Con ferees a l so rejected am en dm en ts th at wou l d h ave l im i ted th e proscribed

m ateria l s to th ose l ackin g redeem in g val u e. See S. Con f. R ep., a t 189, 142 Con g.

R ec. H1165-1166 (Feb. 1, 1996).

37

Even th ou gh th e word "tru n k,'' stan din g a l on e, m igh t refer to l u ggage, a

swim m in g su i t, th e base of a tree, or th e l on g n ose of an an im al , i ts m ean in g i s

cl ear wh en i t i s on e pron g of a th ree-part description of a species of gray

an im al s.

38

« up


33 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

413 U.S., a t 30, 93 S.Ct., a t 2618 (Determ in ation s of "wh at appeal s to th e "pru ri

en t in terest' or i s "paten tl y offen sive' . . . . are essen tia l l y qu estion s of fact, an d

ou r N ation i s sim pl y too big an d too div erse for th is Cou rt to reason abl y expect

th at su ch stan dards cou l d be arti cu l ated for a l l 50 States in a sin gl e

form u l ation , even assu m in g th e prerequ isi te con sen su s exists''). Th e CDA ,

wh ich im pl em en ts th e "con tem porary com m u n ity stan dards'' l an gu age of

Mille r, th u s con fl i cts wi th th e Con ferees' own assertion th at th e CDA was

in ten ded "to establ i sh a u n i form n ation al stan dard of con ten t regu l ation .'' S.

Con f. R ep., a t 191.

39

A ccord, Butle r v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383, 77 S.Ct. 524, 525-526, 1 L.Ed.2d 412

(1957) (ban on sa l e to adu l ts of books deem ed h arm fu l to ch i l dren

u n con sti tu tion al ); S able Communications of Cal., I nc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128,

109 S.Ct. 2829, 2837-2838, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989) (ban on "dia l -a-porn '' m essages

u n con sti tu tion al ); Bolge r v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 73, 103

S.Ct. 2875, 2883-2884, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983) (ban on m ai l in g of u n sol ici ted

adverti sem en t for con traceptives u n con sti tu tion al ).

40

Th e l ack of l egisl ative atten tion to th e statu te at i ssu e in S able su ggests an oth er

paral l el wi th th is case. Com pare 492 U.S., a t 129-130, 109 S.Ct., a t 2838 (" [A ]side

from con cl u sory statem en ts du rin g th e debates by propon en ts of th e bi l l , as wel l

as sim i l ar assertion s in h earin gs on a su bstan tia l l y iden tica l bi l l th e y ear

before, . . . th e con gression al record presen ted to u s con tain s n o ev iden ce as to

how effective or in effectiv e th e FCC's m ost recen t regu l ation s were or m igh t

prov e to be . . . . N o Con gressm an or Sen ator pu rported to presen t a con sidered

ju dgm en t wi th respect to h ow often or to wh at exten t m in ors cou l d or wou l d

circu m ven t th e ru l es an d h ave access to dia l -a-porn m essages'') wi th n . 24,

supra.

41

Th e Gov ern m en t agrees th at th ese prov ision s are appl icabl e wh en ev er "a sen der

tran sm its a m essage to m ore th an on e recipien t, kn owin g th at at l east on e of th e

speci fi c person s receiv in g th e m essage i s a m in or.'' Opposi tion to Motion to

A ffi rm an d R epl y to Ju ris. Statem en t 4-5, n . 1.

42

Th e Gov ern m en t asserts th at " [t]h ere i s n oth in g con sti tu tion al l y su spect abou t

requ irin g com m ercia l Web si te operators . . . to sh ou l der th e m odest bu rden s

associated wi th th eir u se.'' Brief for A ppel l an ts 35. A s a m atter of fact, h owever,

th ere i s n o ev iden ce th at a "m odest bu rden '' wou l d be effectiv e.

43

Tran sm ittin g obscen i ty an d ch i l d porn ograph y , wh eth er v ia th e In tern et or

oth er m ean s, i s a l ready i l l egal u n der federal l aw for both adu l ts an d ju ven i l es.

See 18 U.S.C. §§1464-1465 (crim in al i zin g obscen i ty ); §2251 (crim in al izin g ch i l d

porn ograph y ). In fact, wh en Con gress was con siderin g th e CDA , th e Gov ern m en t

expressed i ts v iew th at th e l aw was u n n ecessary becau se existin g l aws a l ready

au th orized i ts on goin g efforts to prosecu te obscen i ty , ch i l d porn ograph y , an d

ch i l d sol ici tation . See 141 Con g. R ec. S8342 (Ju n e 14, 1995) (l etter from Ken t

Marku s, A ctin g A ssistan t A ttorn ey Gen eral , U.S. Departm en t of Ju stice, to Sen .

Leah y ).

44

Citin g Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye , I nc. v. Hiale ah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217 ,

124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993), am on g oth er cases, appel l ees offer an addi tion al reason

wh y , in th eir v iew, th e CDA fa i l s str i ct scru tin y . Becau se so m u ch sexu al l y

expl ici t con ten t origin ates ov erseas, th ey argu e, th e CDA can n ot be "effectiv e.''

Brief for A ppel l ees A m erican Library A ssociation et a l . 33-34. Th is argu m en t

raises di ffi cu l t i ssu es regardin g th e in ten ded, as wel l as th e perm issibl e scope

45

« up


34 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

of, extraterri toria l appl ication of th e CDA . We fin d i t u n n ecessary to address

th ose i ssu es to dispose of th is case.

For th e fu l l text of §223(e)(5), see n . 26, supra.46

Th u s, i ron ica l l y , th is defen se m ay sign i fi can tl y protect com m ercia l pu rv ey ors

of obscen e postin gs wh i l e prov idin g l i ttl e (or n o) ben efi t for tran sm itters of

in decen t m essages th at h ave sign i fi can t socia l or arti sti c va l u e.

47

929 F.Su pp., a t 855-856.48

A s th is Cou rt l on g ago expl a in ed, "It wou l d certa in l y be dan gerou s i f th e

Legisl atu re cou l d set a n et l arge en ou gh to catch a l l possibl e offen ders an d l eav e

i t to th e cou rts to step in side an d say wh o cou l d be r igh tfu l l y be deta in ed an d

wh o sh ou l d be set at l arge. Th is wou l d, to som e exten t, su bsti tu te th e ju dicia l for

th e l egisl ative departm en t of th e govern m en t.'' Unite d S tate s v. Re e se , 92 U.S.

214, 221, 23 L.Ed. 563 (1875). In part becau se of th ese separation of powers

con cern s, we h av e h el d th at a severabi l i ty cl au se i s "an a id m erel y ; n ot an

in exorabl e com m an d.'' Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 290, 44 S.Ct. 323, 325, 68

L.Ed. 686 (1924).

49

See a l so Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 121, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1702-1703, 109 L.Ed.2d

98 (1990) (ju dicia l rewri tin g of statu tes wou l d derogate Con gress's "in cen tive to

draft a n arrowl y ta i l ored l aw in th e fi rst pl ace'').

50

See, e .g., A l aska Stat. A n n . §11.66.300 (1996) (n o m in ors in "adu l t

en terta in m en t'' pl aces); A riz.R ev .Stat. A n n . §13-3556 (1989) (n o m in ors in

pl aces wh ere peopl e expose th em sel ves); A rk.Code A n n . §§5-27-223, 5-27-224

(1993) (n o m in ors in pool room s an d bars); Col o.R ev .Stat. §18-7-502(2) (1986) (n o

m in ors in pl aces displ ay in g m ovies or sh ows th at are "h arm fu l to ch i l dren '');

Del .Code A n n ., Ti t. 11, §1365(i )(2) (1995) (sam e); D.C.Code A n n . §22-2001(b)(1)(B)

(1996) (sam e); Fl a . Stat. §847.013(2) (1994) (sam e); Ga.Code A n n . §16-12-103(b)

(1996) (sam e); Haw.R ev .Stat. §712-1215(1)(b) (1994) (n o m in ors in m ov ie h ou ses

or sh ows th at are "porn ograph ic for m in ors''); Idah o Code §18-1515(2) (1987) (n o

m in ors in pl aces displ ay in g m ovies or sh ows th at are "h arm fu l to m in ors'');

La .R ev .Stat. A n n . §14:91.11(B) (West 1986) (n o m in ors in pl aces displ ay in g

m ovies th at depict sex acts an d appeal to m in ors' pru rien t in terest); Md.

A n n .Code, A rt. 27 , §416E (1996) (n o m in ors in establ i sh m en ts wh ere certa in

en u m erated acts are perform ed or portray ed); Mich . Com p. Laws §750.141 (1991)

(n o m in ors wi th ou t an adu l t in pl aces wh ere a l coh ol i s sol d); Min n .Stat.

§617 .294 (1987 an d Su pp.1997) (n o m in ors in pl aces displ ay in g m ovies or sh ows

th at are "h arm fu l to m in ors''); Miss.Code A n n . §97-5-11 (1994) (n o m in ors in

pool room s, bi l l iard h al l s, or wh ere a l coh ol i s sol d); Mo.R ev .Stat. §573.507 (1995)

(n o m in ors in adu l t cabarets); N eb.R ev .Stat. §28-809 (1995) (n o m in ors in

pl aces displ ay in g m ov ies or sh ows th at are "h arm fu l to m in ors''); N ev .R ev .Stat.

§201.265(3) (1997) (sam e); N .H.R ev .Stat. A n n . §571-B:2(II) (1986) (sam e); N .M.

Stat. A n n . §30-37-3 (1989) (sam e); N .Y . Pen al Law §235.21(2) (McKin n ey 1989)

(sam e); N .D. Cen t.Code §12.1-27 .1 -03 (1985 an d Su pp.1995) (sam e); 18 Pa.

Con s.Stat. §5903(a) (Su pp.1997) (sam e); S.D. Com p. Laws A n n . §22-24-30 (1988)

(sam e); Ten n .Code A n n . §39-17-911(b) (1991) (sam e); V t. Stat. A n n ., Ti t. 13,

§2802(b) (1974) (sam e); V a.Code A n n . §18.2-391 (1996) (sam e).

1

See, e .g., A l a .Code §13A -12-200.5 (1994); A riz.R ev .Stat. A n n . §13-3506 (1989);

A rk.Code A n n . 5-68-502 (1993); Cal .Pen al Code A n n . §313.1 (West Su pp.1997);

Col o.R ev .Stat. §18-7-502(1) (1986); Con n . Gen .Stat. §53a-196 (1994); Del .Code

A n n ., Ti t. 11, §1365(i )(1) (1995); D.C.Code A n n . §22-2001(b)(1)(A ) (1996); Fl a .

2

« up


35 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

Stat. §847.012 (1994); Ga.Code A n n . §16-12-103(a) (1996); Haw.R ev .Stat.

§712-1215(1) (1994); Idah o Code §18-1515(1) (1987); Il l . Com p. Stat., ch . 720,

§5/11-21 (1993); In d.Code §35-49-3-3(1) (Su pp.1996); Iowa Code §728.2 (1993);

Kan . Stat. A n n . §21-4301c(a)(2) (1988); La .R ev .Stat. A n n . §14:91.11(B) (West

1986); Md. A n n .Code, A rt. 27 , §416B (1996); Mass. Gen . Laws, ch . 272, §28 (1992);

Min n .Stat. §617 .293 (1987 an d Su pp.1997); Miss.Code A n n . §97-5-11 (1994);

Mo.R ev .Stat. §573.040 (1995); Mon t.Code A n n . §45-8-206 (1995); N eb.Rev .Stat.

§28-808 (1995); N ev .R ev .Stat. §§201.265(1), (2) (1997); N .H.R ev .Stat. A n n .

§571-B:2(I) (1986); N .M. Stat. A n n . §30-37-2 (1989); N .Y . Pen al Law §235.21(1)

(McKin n ey 1989); N .C. Gen .Stat. §14-190.15(a) (1993); N .D. Cen t.Code

§12.1-27 .1-03 (1985 an d Su pp.1995); Oh io R ev .Code A n n . §2907.31(A )(1)

(Su pp.1997); Okl a . Stat., Ti t. 21, §1040.76(2) (Su pp.1997); 18 Pa. Con s.Stat.

§5903(c) (Su pp.1997); R .I. Gen . Laws §11-31-10(a) (1996); S.C.Code A n n .

§16-15-385(A ) (Su pp.1996); S.D. Com p. Laws A n n . §22-24-28 (1988); Ten n .Code

A n n . §39-17-911(a) (1991); Tex Pen al Code A n n . §43.24(b) (1994); Utah Code A n n .

§76-10-1206(2) (1995); V t. Stat. A n n ., Ti t. 13, §2802(a) (1974); V a.Code A n n .

§18.2-391 (1996); Wash . R ev .Code §9.68.060 (1988 an d Su pp.1997); Wis. Stat.

§948.11(2) (Su pp.1995).

CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG

« up


36 of 36 09/06/2008 07:57 PM

reno v. aclu : 521 u s 844

Documents