Communications Decency Act
The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was Title V of the United States' Telecommunications Act of 1996. Passed by the United States Congress on February 1, 1996, its primary aim was regulating internet pornography. Free speech advocates, however, worked diligently and successfully to overturn most of it. With those portions invalidated, the net result was an act which enhanced free speech by making it unnecessary for ISPs and other service providers to unduly restrict customers' actions for fear of being found legally liable for customers' conduct. The 1995 decision in Straton Oakmont Inc. & Daniel Porush v. Prodigy Services Company tended to have that effect.
While the child-related Internet portions are no longer effective, Section 230 of the act added valuable protection for online service providers and users from action against them for the actions of others, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This portion of the Act remains in force and has been strengthened in the copyright area by the OCILLA portion of the DMCA.
The CDA contained a number of provisions criminalizing the display or transmission to a minor of material of a violent or sexual nature. The media affected by this act were the Internet and cable television. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on June 12, 1996 a panel of federal judges blocked part of the CDA, saying it would infringe upon the free speech rights of adults. Next month on July 29, a US federal court struck down the portion of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. A year later, on June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, stating that the portion concerned was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech.
The CDA was criticized for prohibiting the posting of "indecent" or "patently offensive" material in public forums on the Internet, which many felt was too ambiguous and could easily be misconstrued. Opponents argued that speech protected under the First Amendment, such as printed novels or the use of the seven dirty words, would suddenly become unlawful when posted to the Internet. Critics also claimed the bill would have a chilling effect on the availability of medical information.
Indecency in (ground wave) TV and radio broadcasting had already been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission - broadcasting of offensive speech was restricted to certain hours of the day, when minors were supposedly least likely to be exposed. Violators (broadcasters) could be fined and potentially lose their licenses.
A narrower version of this act relating to the internet was later restated in the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA was overturned in lower courts in January 1999 based on case law established when much of the CDA was invalidated. Appeals in that case continue.
Cases relying on the CDA include:
