Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!

 in support of free expression



NCAC File Room


The information presented here by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety, provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.

©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design

free speech first amendment censorship

  

Harmful to Minors
Government may regulate speech to promote a compelling state interest. Protecting minors’ physical and psychological well-being is such a compelling interest, and most states have statutes regulating material deemed “harmful to minors.” However, even regulations enacted to protect children must satisfy the requirement that they employ the least restrictive means to achieve that goal. Among other things, this guards against using a child-protection rationale as a pretext, and protects the rights of adults to access material that is considered unsuitable for minors.

Recently, the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was enacted with the express purpose of protecting children from indecent online communications, was held to violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court criticized the ambiguous reach of the law, and found there was a less restrictive means of protecting minors: parental controls and filtering software. The Court said CDA would have had a chilling effect and would be an outright impediment to the exercise of many adults’ First Amendment rights. The Court stated, “we have repeatedly recognized the government interest in protecting children from harmful materials. ...But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults…. ‘[R]egardless of the government’s interest’ in protecting children, ‘[t]he level of discourse reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.’” (Reno v. ACLU)

The test most frequently used by courts to determine whether speech is indeed harmful to minors is a modified Miller obscenity test:

• Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material taken as a whole would appeal to minors’ prurient interest in sex;
• Whether the material depicts an actual or simulated sexual act in a manner patently offensive by community standards as applied to a minor; and
• Whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Associated Cases:

Ashcroft v. ACLU
Bellospirito v. Manhasset Public Library
Erzoznik v. City of Jacksonville
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas
Nitke v. Gonzalez
Reno v. ACLU
State v. Bohannon
These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send to ncac@ncac.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Alerts

» National

» Eastern

» Central

» Mountain

» Pacific


» email alert sign-up


» report censorship!

 

275 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 » Phone (212) 807-6222 Fax (212) 807-6245 » ncac@ncac.org