The Justice Department Brief in support of the Communication Decency Act filed on January 21, 1997.
No. 96-511
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1996
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
ET AL., APPELLANTS
V.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ET AL.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The opinion of the three-judge district court (J.S. App. 1a-147a) is reported at 929 F. Supp. 824.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS
ARGUMENT
Much of the Internet's potential as an educational and informational resource will be wasted, however, if people are unwilling to avail themselves of its benefits because they do not want their children harmed by exposure to patently offensive sexually explicit material. The government therefore not only has an especially strong interest in protecting children from patently offensive material on the Internet, it has an equally compelling interest in furthering the First Amendment interest of all Americans to use what has become an unparalleled educational resource.
The district court erred in finding the CDA's restrictions unconstitutionally vague. The restrictions apply only to material that, "in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." 47 U.S.C. 223(d)(1). That formulation gives fair warning concerning the great bulk-of what is and is not covered.
Even if the display provision were unconstitutional in some of its applications, the district court erred in enjoining enforcement of all three provisions in their entirety. The CDA is governed by a severability clause that makes clear that any invalid provision is severable from the rest. The severability clause also makes clear that if application of particular provisions is invalid in some respects, the CDA should otherwise remain intact.
