Cases pin-citing Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

Cases pin-citing Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union  ·  1997  ·  158 pinpoint citations from 59 cases, 47 distinct passages.

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President  ·  2025-12-23  ·  District of Columbia  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“The vagueness of [a regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.”
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President  ·  2025-05-27  ·  District of Columbia  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.”
FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. v. ROKITA  ·  2024-06-28  ·  S.D. Indiana  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
"Under the CDA, by contrast, neither the parents' consent—nor even their participation—in the communication would avoid the application of the statute."
United States v. Helaman Hansen  ·  2022-02-10  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“[W]e will not rewrite a law to conform it to constitutional requirements for doing so would constitute a serious invasion of the legislative domain and sharply diminish Congress’s incentive to draft a narrowly tailored law in the first place.”
New Century Foundation v. Robertson  ·  2019-09-10  ·  M.D. Tennessee  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“The vagueness of [a content-based speech] regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.”
W. Watersheds Project v. Michael  ·  2018-10-29  ·  D. Wyoming  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"This argument is unpersuasive because the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content. A 'time, place, and manner' analysis is therefore inapplicable."
Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida  ·  2017-02-16  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“The vagueness of [content-based regulations of speech] . . . raise[s] special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.”
Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida  ·  2017-02-16  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The vagueness of [content-based regulations of speech] . . . raise[s] special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.”
State v. Abigail Marie Stubbs  ·  2016-08-09  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers.”
State v. Bishop  ·  2016-06-10  ·  Supreme Court of North Carolina  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“[O]ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the Internet].”
Massachusetts Ass'n of Private Career Schools v. Healey  ·  2016-01-25  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect”
Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board  ·  2015-08-20  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 S. Ct. at 844
“Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”
Does v. Snyder  ·  2015-03-31  ·  E.D. Michigan  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[0]ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the Internet].”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.  ·  2015-03-06  ·  S.D. Indiana  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect”
ARGANBRIGHT v. STATE  ·  2014-05-20  ·  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"[B]urden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve."
ARGANBRIGHT v. STATE  ·  2014-05-20  ·  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"[B]urden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve."
Hassay v. Mayor of Ocean City  ·  2013-07-03  ·  D. Maryland  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“ ‘[0]ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ ”
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia  ·  2012-11-29  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its *330 obvious chilling effect on speech.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board  ·  2012-09-04  ·  D. Kansas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials”
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.  ·  2012-06-21  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 521 U.S. at 844
“The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its ob­ vious chilling effect”
Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.  ·  2012-02-21  ·  Indiana Court of Appeals  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 138 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[0]ur cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the internet].”
Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. DOES 1-1,062  ·  2011-03-22  ·  District of Columbia  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 874
“Such rights to speak anonymously apply ... to speech on the Internet.”
Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Missouri  ·  2010-09-08  ·  E.D. Missouri  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials ... But that does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults."
Glenn v. Holder  ·  2010-09-07  ·  E.D. Michigan  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The severity of criminal sanctions may well cause speakers to remain silent rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words [or] ideas.”
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3  ·  2010-04-29  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”
United States v. McCoy  ·  2009-12-24  ·  M.D. Georgia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[T]he ‘patently offensive’ ... criteria ... is ... judged by contemporary community standards.”
McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands  ·  2009-08-21  ·  Virgin Islands  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[T]ime, place and manner” analysis not applicable when statute “regulates speech on the basis of its content”
Solers, Inc. v. Doe  ·  2009-08-13  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“There is ‘no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the internet].’ ”
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc.  ·  2009-06-03  ·  Arizona Supreme Court  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"cyberspace," in which e-mail exists, is "a unique medium... located in no particular geographical location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world"
Morrison v. Board of Educ. of Boyd County  ·  2008-04-09  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"The vagueness of [a content-based speech] regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech."
Morrison v. Board of Educ. of Boyd County  ·  2007-10-26  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"The vagueness of [a content-based speech] regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech."
Connection Distributing Co. v. Keisler  ·  2007-10-23  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 138 L. Ed. 2d at 874
"[W]e declined to `dra[w] one or more lines between categories of speech covered by an overly broad statute, when Congress has sent inconsistent signals as to where the new line or lines should be drawn' because doing so `involves a far more serious invasion of the legislative domain.'"
Voters Education Committee v. Public Disclosure Commission  ·  2007-09-13  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.”
Vec v. State Public Disclosure Com'n  ·  2007-09-13  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech."
United States v. Schaefer  ·  2007-09-05  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers."
Viola v. A. & E TELEVISON NETWORKS  ·  2006-06-07  ·  W.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[T]he CDA is a criminal statute.”
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. Miller  ·  2006-02-16  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[The Web] provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communications of all kinds.”
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Auth. v. Miller  ·  2006-02-16  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"[The Web] provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communications of all kinds."
Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority  ·  2004-11-29  ·  First Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
"[T]he mere fact that a statutory regulation of speech was enacted for the important purpose of protecting children ... does not foreclose inquiry into its validity."
Vives v. City of New York  ·  2003-11-24  ·  S.D. New York  ·  pin 117 S. Ct. at 2329
“The prohibition against vague regulations of speech is based in part on the need to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement.”
Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. Verizon Internet Services  ·  2003-04-24  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates further than it could from any soapbox.”
Verizon Internet Services, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services  ·  2003-01-21  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”
Mathis v. Cannon  ·  2002-11-25  ·  Supreme Court of Georgia  ·  pin 138 L. Ed. 2d at 874
"Web publishing is simple enough that thousands of individual users and small community organizations are using the Web to publish their own personal `home pages,' the equivalent of individualized newsletters about that person or organization, which are available to everyone on the Web."
American Library Ass'n, Inc. v. United States  ·  2002-05-31  ·  E.D. Pennsylvania  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 138 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[Tjhere is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors which extend[s] to shielding them from indecent messages that are not obscene by adult standards ....”
Chatam International, Inc. v. Bodum, Inc.  ·  2001-08-07  ·  E.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“The Internet is a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication.”
Saxe v. State College Area School District  ·  2001-02-14  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“time, place and manner” analysis not applicable when statute “regulates speech on the basis of its content”
Island Online, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc.  ·  2000-11-06  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“no single entity — academic, corporate, governmental, or non-profit — administers the Internet.”
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer  ·  2000-07-26  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[i]n considering a facial challenge, this Court may impose a limiting construction on a statute only if it is ‘readily susceptible’ to such a construction”
Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United States  ·  1998-12-28  ·  D. Delaware  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 117 L. Ed. 2d at 844
“[sjexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment”
Page 1 of 4   Next →