The Communications Decency Act, Title V of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, was introduced by Senators Exon and Gorton in 1995 as the
first attempt to regulate pornographic material appearing on the
Internet. Title V affected the Internet and online communication in
two ways. Firstly, as its original goal, it attempted to regulate
indecency and obscenity online. Secondly, Section 230 of the act
defined operators of Internet services were not to be interpreted as
publishes, and therefore legally liable for the words of third
parties.
The anti-indecency and anti-obscenity provisions of the
Communications Decency Act were put in place in response to concerns
that Internet pornography was on the rise. Title V sought to extend
the decency and obscenity rules that the FCC already imposed on
television and radio. Title V specifically imposes criminal
sanctions to anyone who knowingly utilizes Internet and online means
to send to or provide any “comment, request, suggestion, proposal,
image or other communication that, in context depicts, describes or
in terms patently offensive, sexual or excretory activities.”
Unfortunately, this was met with great objection by free speech
advocates who argued that novels in print today, later posted on the
Internet, which contained use of the “seven dirty words” would
become unlawful, resulting in a chilling effect of the availability
of information.
Several
States began blocking portions of the Act, citing the fact that it
would violate free speech rights of adults as reasoning behind the
blockage. One such case was Reno
v. ACLU which
sought to show that the indecency provisions of Title V were an
unconstitutional abridgment of the first amendment to free speech and
that the terms “patently offensive” were not thoroughly defined
and therefore impossible to abide by. On June 26, 1997, the court
upheld Philadelphia's decision to block this specific portion of the
Act and in 2003, Congress amended the Act to repeal the indecency
clause(s).
In effect, the Supreme Court found the legal wording of the Act to be
too loose, and therefore difficult to work to avoid violating, and
furthermore enforce. So, while the Act meant well, it, through
several amendments and revisions has been stripped down, and while
its original intention is still there – its effect is not as far
reaching as originally intended.