Anush's+Content+Page


 * Cohen v. California (1971)**

Paul Robert Cohen, age 19 was arrested for "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person...by...offensive conduct" for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in the Los Angeles Courthouse. He was sentenced to 30 days in prison. He appealed the decision in the California Appellate Court, which upheld the conviction.

The case was appealed in the Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction, and Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by four other justices.

The Court argued that Cohen's speech was not offensive conduct, because, most importantly, Cohen was exhibiting speech rather than conduct that was either violent in nature or meant to offend anyone and create a violent situation. Thus, the State cannot punish Cohen for the message, which is protected under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Rather, the State can only regulate the manner of speech. The State can regulate the transmission of "obscenity" in certain instances, but Cohen's speech is not obscene because it is not sexual in nature. The State can also regulate "fighting words" which is speech that can incite the average person to violence against the person delivering the speech. However, the Court stated that Cohen's message was not addressed to a specific person, thus it is not very likely to provoke violence. Also, the Court held that the statute under which Cohen was convicted was not specific enough, thus it did not detail what behaviors entail offensive conduct.

In the second part of the Court's opinion, Justice Harlan goes on to argue the importance of free speech.

Justice Blackmun dissented, saying that "Cohen's absurd and immature antic was mainly conduct and little speech," and so "this Court's agonizing over First Amendment values seems misplaced and unnecessary."


 * Reno v. ACLU (1997)**

Reno v. ACLU overturned the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The CDA was the first real effort to regulate content on the Internet. It made it illegal to transmit obscene pictures or text, as well as those relating to sexual or excretory activities or organs to minors under the age of 18. The CDA was a part of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996. ACLU immediately challenged the Act. Janet Reno is the Attorney General of the United States.

The Court held that the government's aim to prohibit "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" abridge speech protected under the First Amendment.

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court held that the CDA was overly broad. Indecent speech or material relating to sexual or excretory activities would also block information relating to sex education, or artistic material that was indecent but not pornographic.

Material accessible on the Internet is different from material broadcast on radio and television. Children aren't likely to accidentally stumble upon sexually explicit content on the Internet, unlike the radio.

The CDA prohibits only broadcasting indecent content to minors, but it will be difficult to verify the age of those accessing the sites. Using a person's credit card to check the age is an option, but it will impose punitive costs on non-commercial websites, causing many of them to shut down. It is also not a foolproof method of making sure that the person accessing the site is over the age of 18.

The Court noted that this case was unlike others where the Court upheld laws protecting children. Ginsbert v. New York was found constitutional because it was limited to commercial transactions, but it did not prohibit parents from buying indecent material for their children.

Anderson, S. (2001). Reno vs. aclu: The u.s. supreme court finds the communications decency act unconstitutional. //Acquisitions Librarian//, //13//(2ma6), 131-143.

