Reno v. ACLU was the first major Supreme Court case about speech on the internet. In 1997, the Court struck down a federal law that made it a crime to send “indecent” material online where minors could see it, and it held that the internet deserves the same free speech protection as books and newspapers.
If an older article or encyclopedia sent you here, the original case summary from this site is preserved in the Internet Archive: view the archived page. You can also browse more early internet law cases.
What Happened
In February 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act as part of a larger telecommunications law. One section made it a crime to send “indecent” or “patently offensive” material online to anyone under 18, or to display it where a minor could see it. Supporters said it would protect children from online pornography.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups sued the day the law was signed, and a second coalition of libraries, publishers and online services, including the American Library Association and America Online, soon filed its own suit. The cases were combined. The challengers argued that the words “indecent” and “patently offensive” were so broad that the law would chill a huge amount of legitimate adult speech, from health information to art, because a speaker online usually has no way to know whether a minor is reading. A special three-judge federal court in Philadelphia agreed and blocked the law, and the government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Decided
On June 26, 1997, the Court ruled that the indecency provisions violated the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens explained that the internet is not like broadcast television or radio, which the government regulates more heavily. Anyone can use it to publish to the world, and it is not “invasive” in the way a broadcast is. Speech online therefore gets the full protection of the First Amendment.
The Court accepted that protecting children is an important goal. But it found the law too vague and too broad, and noted that less restrictive tools, such as software that lets parents block material, were available. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, agreed in part but would have upheld parts of the law where an adult knowingly sends indecent material to people the adult knows are minors.
Why It Mattered
Reno v. ACLU set the basic rule for the online world: the government cannot restrict what adults say on the internet just because children might see it. Congress tried again in 1998 with the Child Online Protection Act, and courts blocked that law too.
The case also left something standing. Another part of the same 1996 law, Section 230, was not challenged. Section 230 generally protects online services from being treated as the publisher of what their users post, and it became one of the most important laws in the history of the internet. More recently, the Supreme Court has allowed states to require age checks for sites where a substantial share of the content is pornography, so the debate over protecting children online continues.
The Connection to Today’s Social Media Lawsuits
Nearly thirty years later, the question of how to protect children online has returned in a different form. Instead of trying to restrict what people can say, thousands of families are suing the companies behind Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube over how their apps were designed. The lawsuits claim the companies built features meant to keep children scrolling, knew about the harm to young users and failed to warn parents.
Because these claims focus on product design and warnings rather than on what users post, courts have allowed many of them to move forward, and juries have begun hearing them. If your child was harmed, Doyle APC handles these claims together with experienced co-counsel. Learn who may qualify for compensation.
Common Questions
What did Reno v. ACLU decide?
The Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act’s ban on “indecent” and “patently offensive” online material violated the First Amendment, and that speech on the internet gets the same protection as print.
When was Reno v. ACLU decided?
June 26, 1997. The law had been blocked by a lower court in June 1996, a few months after Congress passed it.
Did the ruling strike down Section 230?
No. Section 230 was part of the same 1996 law, but it was not challenged in the case and remains in effect today.
Why do people still cite this case?
It is the starting point for nearly every legal debate about regulating speech online, including today’s fights over age verification and children’s online safety laws.
Who runs this site now?
Doyle APC, a San Diego law firm that represents people nationwide in mass tort cases. Doyle APC handles social media addiction claims together with experienced co-counsel. Learn more about the firm.