How The ACLU's Fight To Protect 'Indecent' Speech Saved The Internet From Being Treated Like Broadcast TV

from the early-adopters-FTW dept

The ACLU is celebrating twenty years of making the internet better. On June 26th, 1997, the ACLU prevailed in Reno v. ACLU, with the Supreme Court striking down the anti-indecency portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA).

As can be gathered by the law's name, it was written from a position of morality and panic -- the fear that the internet's connectivity would drown the nation's youth in easily-accessible porn. And yet, the law survives today as one of the most important factors in the internet's speedy growth, thanks to Section 230, which prevents service providers and social media platforms from being held civilly responsible for users' posts and actions.

But it might not have been that way. In 1996, the ACLU didn't even have a website of its own and most legislators had nothing more than bill sponsors' parades of horribles to go on. So, for the children, the CDA criminalized "obscene or indecent" material if it could be viewed by minors.

It was another case of legislators "knowing" what was indecent when they saw it. But even under that wholly subjective standard, the government spent most of its time shrugging.

During the various internet censorship cases the ACLU brought, we asked the government to identify speech in each category, and they were largely unable to do so. For example, they said that an online photo on Playboy’s website of a topless woman was not harmful to minors, but a virtually identical photo on Penthouse’s website was.

The ACLU's website was born from this legal battle. In order to show standing, the ACLU had to publish something the government might consider "indecent." It chose a Supreme Court decision declaring George Carlin's famous "Seven Words You Can't Say on TV" monologue "indecent." The entire monologue was included in the decision's appendix. The ACLU posted the decision and asked readers to guess which words the Supreme Court had found indecent. Obviously, it ended up with far more than seven words, which was enough to give it standing to challenge the CDA provision.

The plan worked. The ACLU took its challenge all the way to the Supreme Court and won. If it hadn't, the internet would be as boring and lifeless as the blandest of network TV offerings. That's the standard legislators were hoping to apply to the world's greatest communication platform: the same rules the FCC applies to broadcast TV. The Supreme Court struck down this damaging provision, recognizing the enormous potential of the web and the threat posed to it by "think of the children" legislation.

The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.

The ACLU's site has a long interview with Chris Hansen, who led the ACLU's litigation. It's well worth reading, especially considering what the web might have become if no one had stepped up to defend "indecent" speech.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Jun 2017 @ 5:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    _You don't need a government to build roads, run an economy, exchange idea's, have trade, or be a peaceful society with the rule of law and benevolence._

    You actually do. Building roads, for example, requires complex negotiations with landowners to agree on where they should be built. There also needs to be a plan as to where they are going to and from, and funding needs to be agreed. Who would coordinate the building of the roads if not the government?

    In the wild-and-free market you envisage, the economy would not be "run." It would exist subject to the stresses and strains placed upon it by the forces of supply and demand. Needless to say, due to human nature being what it is we'd soon have leaded paint chips up the wazoo and monopolies merging into one. Per Milton Friedman this is okay due to economies of scale that apparently don't apply when governments buy in bulk. Ask him about it, I would not have come out with such nonsense.

    RE: exchanging ideas - okay you get that one.

    RE: trade, that depends on scale and on what is being traded. Rules for trade have been established to resolve problems in trade, e.g. what can or can't be traded. Try reading up on a trade agreement text, these things are complex for a reason. I know this because I had to in order to make coherent arguments when opposing the ones I'm not keen on.

    RE: peaceful society, you're pretending that getting rid of government will magically turn us all into happy clappy Kum-ba-yah hippies. No, it won't. Human nature is what it is. Deal with it.

    RE: rule of law, that's what government is primarily for; making and enforcing the law. No government, no law or rule thereof.

    RE: benevolence, to the "tax is theft" brigade that should be limited to charities, etc., which tend to be restrictive, i.e. benevolent to the individuals and groups they are set up to help, and no one else. Result: benevolence for thee, not me. This is why Medicare for all is a good idea, though I did see a decent plan put forward by a doctor on Twitter who recommended community healthcare centres working from a preventative care perspective. End result would be that it'd cost less as preventative care is a lot cheaper than treating complex illnesses resulting from neglecting minor ones.

    Basically, we need government. Your arguments are invalid.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.