Answer :
Final answer:
The Communications Decency Act was found unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment, being vague and not content neutral, as determined in the Reno v. ACLU case. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of protecting free speech despite the challenges posed by the Internet.
Explanation:
The Communications Decency Act, which prohibited any use of the Internet to make "indecent" material available to children, was found to be unconstitutional for several key reasons. Primarily, the US Supreme Court deemed it to violate the First Amendment because it was not content neutral and too vague, posing a significant restriction on free speech. Justice Stevens noted that the Act was a "content-based blanket restriction on speech," targeting indecent material explicitly, such as profanity, vulgarity, and por-nography. The law's ambiguity resulted in a chilling effect, suppressing constitutionally protected speech among adults. Furthermore, the Act was criticized for not being the least drastic means available to shield minors from indecent material, with alternatives like web site rating systems or filtering software being suggested instead.
In the landmark case Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down certain provisions of the CDA, highlighting the infeasibility of restricting Internet content to only that which is suitable for children. The decision underscored the fundamental principle that "the level of discourse reaching a mailbox cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox," emphasizing the essential role of the First Amendment in protecting free speech, even in the face of new digital challenges.
