The Supreme Court's Approach to the First Amendment in Cyberspace: Free Speech as Technology's Hand-Maiden

By Kende, Mark S. | Constitutional Commentary, Winter 1997 | Go to article overview

The Supreme Court's Approach to the First Amendment in Cyberspace: Free Speech as Technology's Hand-Maiden


Kende, Mark S., Constitutional Commentary


I. INTRODUCTION

On June 26, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first case involving cyberspace, Reno v. ACLU.(1) The Court ruled that the Communication Decency Act (CDA),(2) a federal law that bans the communication on the Internet of indecent speech aimed at children, violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The question of what free speech rights exist in cyberspace has been aptly described as a "battle of the analogies." Under the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, free speech rights vary with the technological medium through which the speech is expressed. The Court has been the most solicitous of speech from the print media (like newspapers and magazines) and the least respectful of broadcast speech (from television or radio).(3) The question then becomes: Is expression on the Internet more like print, or like T.V. broadcasts, or like some other medium, such as telephones? The Supreme Court discussed this issue in ACLU.

This commentary deals mainly with a different but related question that is less examined: What effect will cyberspace have on how the Supreme Court views the First Amendment? One way to start answering that question is to compare ACLU with a Supreme Court decision from the 1995-96 term involving indecent speech on cable television, Denver Area Education Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC(4)

At first glance, the two decisions appear to conflict. In Denver, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a plurality opinion advocating a non-categorical "wait and see" approach to free speech cases involving new technologies. In ACLU, however, the Court ruled decisively that the CDA's restriction on Internet indecency was subject to strict scrutiny which it failed to pass.

Moreover, none of our current free speech theories seem able to reconcile these cases. These include the marketplace, self-fulfillment, social outlet, and political theories of free speech. My view, however, is that these two cases can be reconciled once it is understood that the Supreme Court is developing a new model of free speech analysis in Internet-related cases.

The Court's new model can best be described as the "technology-driven" First Amendment because it is more concerned with preserving the development of new telecommunication technologies like the Internet than with the niceties of First Amendment doctrine. This commentary shows how the Court has started to develop this new First Amendment model, and offers several criticisms of how the Court is employing the new model.

II. THE DENVER CASE

The Denver case examined the constitutionality of three provisions of a federal law regulating cable television.(5) The first provision authorized cable operators to ban indecent programming on their leased access channels (the "ban" provision).(6) The second provision required those cable operators who permit such indecent programming to segregate it onto one channel, and to block its availability until the cable subscriber requests it (the "segregate and block" provision).(7) Finally, the law permitted cable operators to prohibit indecent programming on public access channels (the "public access" provision). Indecent speech was defined in the law as programming depicting "sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards."(8)

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the "ban" provision, but struck down the "segregate and block" and the "public access" provisions. In upholding the provision that lets cable operators ban indecent material, Justice Breyer wrote a plurality opinion that was extraordinary in several respects. He explicitly refused to select either a definitive level of scrutiny or a category in which to place free speech regulations of indecent material on cable television.(9) He based this refusal on a view that any choice of a First Amendment category today for this dynamic technology would be based on assumptions that will be rendered obsolete by further innovations. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Supreme Court's Approach to the First Amendment in Cyberspace: Free Speech as Technology's Hand-Maiden
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.