How this document has been cited
—striking statute prohibiting "knowing" dissemination of "indecent" and "obscene" communications to children over the internet
- in Ex parte Moy, 2017 and 65 similar citations
—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
- in MINORITY TELEVISION PROJECT INC. v. FCC, 2013 and 73 similar citations
The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech
- in Monroe v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 2019 and 255 similar citations
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 …
- in Scott v. State, 2016 and 66 similar citations
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."
- in Center for Democracy & Technology v. Pappert, 2004 and 284 similar citations
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
- in Arganbright v. State, 2014 and 236 similar citations
—we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials
- in NEW MEXICO TOP ORGANICS-ULTRA HEALTH, INC. v. Kennedy, 2018 and 114 similar citations
O] ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the internet
- in In re Indiana Newspapers Inc., 2012 and 356 similar citations
"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.'"
- in Pedersen v. Schneider, 2021 and 94 similar citations
They allege that this pervasive imprecision chills protected speech (especially since violations of the statute may trigger both criminal and civil penalties).
- in IMS Health Inc. v. Ayotte, 2008 and 32 similar citations
Cited by
95 F. 4th 263 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2024
535 US 564 - Supreme Court 2002
94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2000
201 F. Supp. 2d 401 - Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2002
613 F. 3d 317 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2010
Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2004
362 F. 3d 227 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2004
322 F. 3d 240 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2003
202 F. Supp. 2d 300 - Dist. Court, D. Vermont 2002
99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 184 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 2000