Communications Decency Act

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was Title V of the United States' Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was introduced to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by senators James Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) in 1995 in response to fears that Internet pornography was on the rise. Indecency in (ground wave) TV and radio broadcasting had already been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission - broadcasting of offensive speech was restricted to certain hours of the day, when minors were supposedly least likely to be exposed. Violators (broadcasters) could be fined and potentially lose their licenses. The Internet, however, had only recently been opened to commercial interests by the 1992 amendment to the National Science Foundation Act and thus was not considered by many previous laws. The CDA, which affected the Internet and cable television, marked the first attempt to expand regulation to this new sphere.

Related Topics:
Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - James Exon - Slade Gorton - Federal Communications Commission - National Science Foundation Act - Internet - Cable television

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Passed by the U.S. Congress on February 1, 1996, the CDA explicitly outlawed intentionally communicating ?by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.?

Related Topics:
U.S. Congress - February 1 - 1996

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Free speech advocates, however, worked diligently and successfully to overturn the portion relating to indecent, but not obscene, speech. They argued that speech protected under the First Amendment, such as printed novels or the use of the seven dirty words, would suddenly become unlawful when posted to the Internet. Critics also claimed the bill would have a chilling effect on the availability of medical information. Online civil liberties organizations arranged protests against the bill, for example the Black World Wide Web protest which encouraged webmasters to make the site backgrounds black for 48 hours after the passing, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign.

Related Topics:
Free speech - Seven dirty words - Chilling effect - Black World Wide Web protest - Electronic Frontier Foundation - Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on June 12, 1996 a panel of federal judges blocked part of the CDA, saying it would infringe upon the free speech rights of adults. Next month on July 29, a US federal court struck down the portion of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. A year later, on June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, stating that the portion concerned was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because it did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not define "patently offensive," a term with no prior legal standing.

Related Topics:
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - June 12 - 1996 - Free speech - July 29 - June 26 - 1997 - Supreme Court - Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union - First Amendment

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The limitation on obscene speech was not overturned. Some consider this problematic because the legal definition of obscenity has previously used local community standards. This definition which does not work well with the Internet, where material published in one location is accessible from all. The ongoing case Nitke v. Ashcroft is challenging this obscenity portion of the act.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A narrower version of this act relating to the Internet was later restated in the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA was overturned in lower courts in January 1999 based on case law established when much of the CDA was invalidated and declared unconstitional by the Supreme Court in 2002.

Related Topics:
Child Online Protection Act - January - 1999

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~