—striking statute prohibiting "knowing" dissemination of "indecent" and "obscene" communications to children over the internet

—highlighting the "special justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not applicable to other speakers," including the "history of extensive Government regulation of the broadcast medium," "the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception," and "its `invasive'nature

The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech

In Reno, the Court invalidated two provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act, which sought to protect minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive" communications on the Internet by prohibiting the "knowing transmission of... indecent messages to any recipient under 18 years of age" and the "knowing sending or displaying of patently offensive messages …

The Supreme Court has stated, "[t] hrough the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer."

B] urden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve

—we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials

O] ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the internet

"In evaluating the free speech rights of adults,[the United States Supreme Court has] made it perfectly clear that `[s] exual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.'"

They allege that this pervasive imprecision chills protected speech (especially since violations of the statute may trigger both criminal and civil penalties).