Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Congress passed laws to protect minors from pornography on the internet. The CDA provisions under dispute are described as the indecent transmission and the patently offensive display provision sections 223(a) and 223(d). The breadth of these prohibitions is qualified by two affirmative defenses. One covers those who take 'good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions' to restrict access by minors to the prohibited communications. § 223(e)(5)(A). The other covers those who restrict access to covered material by requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card or an adult identification number or code. § 223(e)(5)(B). Ps immediately filed suit. Based on his conclusion that the term 'indecent' was too vague to provide the basis for a criminal prosecution, Judge Buckwalter entered a temporary restraining order against enforcement of § 223(a)(1)(B)(ii) insofar as it applies to indecent communications. A second suit was then filed by 27 additional plaintiffs; the two cases were consolidated. The Court entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both of the challenged provisions. Each of the three judges wrote a separate opinion, but their judgment was unanimous. The court preserved the right of the Government to investigate and prosecute the obscenity of child pornography activities prohibited therein. The government contends that the District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated the First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it was vague.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co