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.