Parts of the Act were rendered invalid by a Supreme Court
decision of 1997. The NCSF filed its claim in New York arguing that
a remaining obscenity rule in the Act is so broad and vague that it
violates free speech and inhibits the discussion of sexual issues
on the internet among adults.
The law originally provided that, in effect, on-line comments,
requests, suggestions, proposals, images, or other communications
which are obscene or indecent can amount to an offence punishable
by up to two years imprisonment if the author knew that a recipient
of the communications would be under 18 years of age.
In the Supreme Court, it was ruled that this law would burden
communications between adults to the extent that it limited
"indecent" communications.
The court reasoned that, "Given the size of the potential
audience for most messages, in the absence of a viable age
verification process, the sender must be charged with knowing that
one or more minors will view it."
Thus, the Court concluded, "these limitations must inevitably
curtail a significant amount of adult communication on the
internet." It struck down the indecency component of the law but
left the obscenity provision because, according to the NCSF, this
was not challenged by the parties to that case.
The NCSF says in its filing:
“The obscenity provision of the CDA does not
provide an internet-specific definition of obscenity but may
subject each speaker on the internet to prosecution by any
jurisdiction whose residents might access the internet, and whose
local community standards may be offended by the content therein
provided.”
It is seeking a declaratory judgment that the remaining law is
unconstitutional as a direct restriction of speech and as
unconstitutionally broad.
