Answer :
Final answer:
The Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act of 1996 unconstitutional because it was not content neutral, too vague, and did not employ the least drastic means to shield minors from indecent material, violating the First Amendment.
Explanation:
The Supreme Court found the Communications Decency Act of 1996 unconstitutional primarily for three reasons:
- It was not content neutral. The act overly targeted specific types of speech, such as indecent material including profanity, vulgarity, thus implementing a content-based restriction on speech.
- The wording of the act was overly vague, with terms such as 'indecent' not clearly defined. This ambiguity led to a chilling effect where constitutionally protected speech was censored out of fear of violating the law.
- It did not employ the least drastic means to prevent minors from accessing indecent material, which could have been achieved through less restrictive measures like a web site rating system or the use of filtering software.
In Reno v. ACLU, the Court emphasized the importance of First Amendment protections and found that the act's provisions suppressed a significant amount of speech that adults have the constitutional right to receive and share with others.
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation established that while broadcasting has less First Amendment protection due to its pervasive nature, the Internet, being a unique and interactive medium, is entitled to more robust protections under the First Amendment.
