The author investigates the court cases raised to contest sections of the Communications Decency Act (1996) and thereby examines the issue of First Amendment rights and the Internet.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno (1996), 929 F. Supp. 824.
2.
American Library Association et al. v. Pataki (1997), 960 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y June 20), 2 Electronic Information Law and Policy Report 680.
3.
Bigelow v. Virginia (1974), 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222.
4.
BittnerJohn R. (1994), Law and Regulation of Electronic Media.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BoedeckerKarl A., MorganFred W., and WrightLinda Berns (1995), “The Evolution of First Amendment Protection for Commercial Speech,”Journal of Marketing, 59(January), 38–47.
6.
Bolger v. Young Drug Products Corp. (1983), 463 U.S. 60, 103 S.Ct. 2875.
7.
BurkDan (1996), “Federalism in Cyberspace,”Connecticut Law Review, 28, 1095–165.
8.
City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications Inc. (1986), 476 U.S. 488, 106 S.Ct. 2034.
CohenHenry (1996), “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment,”Congressional Research Service 95–815, (September 4). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
11.
CookDon Lloyd, and CoupeyEloise (1998), “Consumer Behavior and Unresolved Regulatory Issues in Electronic Marketing,”Journal of Business Research, 43(March), 223–29.
12.
CookDon Lloyd, and MendozaNorma (1997), “A Framework for the Evaluation and Promulgation of Advertising Regulation for the Internet and World-Wide Web,” working paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and the University of Florida.
13.
EmordJonathan W. (1991), Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment.San Francisco: Pacific Institute for Public Policy, Center for Applied Jurisprudence.
14.
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975), 422 U.S. 205, 95 S.Ct. 2268.
15.
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), 428 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 1282.
16.
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996), 116 S.Ct. 1495.
17.
Ginsburg v. New York (1968), 390 U.S. 629.
18.
GreenhouseLinda (1997), “What Level of Protection for Internet Speech? High Court Weighs Decency-Act Case,”New York Times, (March 24), C5.
19.
HazlettThomas W. (1991), “The Rationality of the U.S. Regulation of the Broadcast Spectrum,”Journal of Law and Economics, 33(April), 133–75.
20.
HerndonSheryl L. (1997), “The Communications Decency Act: Aborting the First Amendment,”Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 3(2) [available at http://www.richmond.edu/∼jolt/v3i1/herndon.html].
21.
KentFelix H. (1996), “Headlines of [Advertising] Decisions in 1996,”New York Law Journal, (December 20), 3–13.
22.
Kovacs v. Cooper (1949), 336 U.S 77, 69 S.Ct. 448.
23.
KrantzMichael (1997), “Censor's Sensibility: Are Web Filters Valuable Watchdogs or Just New Online Thought Police?”Time, (August 11), 48.
24.
LasicaJ.D. (1997), “Censorship Devices on the Internet,”American Journalism Review, (October), 56.
25.
LudwikowskiMark R. (1996), “Proposed Government Regulation of Tobacco Advertising Uses Teens to Disguise First Amendment Violations,”CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 4(Winter), 105–17.
26.
Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981), 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882.
27.
Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo (1974), 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831.
28.
PettyRoss D. (1992), The Impact of Advertising Law on Business and Public Policy.Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
29.
PlummerJames (1997), “Tobacco Deal's a Sweet One for Net Censors,”Investor's Business Daily, (August 22), A26.
30.
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986), 478 U.S. 328, 106 S.Ct. 2968.
31.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969), 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 1794.
32.
Reno v. ACLU (1997), U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 96–511, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 65 U.S. Law Week 4715, 2 Electronic Information Policy and Law Report 664.
33.
Reno v. Shea (1997), U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 96–595, 2 Electronic Information Policy and Law Report 715.
34.
Report of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Special Committee to Study the Role of the Federal Trade Commission (1989) in Marketing and Advertising: The Federal Trade Commission in the 1990s, MurphyPatrick E., and WilkeWilliam L., eds. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, Appendix II, 412–62. Originally printed in Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 56(April), s1–53.
35.
RichardsJef I. (1997a), “Is 44 Liquormart a Turning Point?”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(Spring), 156–62.
36.
RichardsJef I. (1997b), “Legal Potholes on the Information Superhighway,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(Fall), 319–26.
37.
RoseLance (1997), “The U.S. Supreme Court's Indecency Decision: A Minor Ruling for the Multiple Media Internet,”Electronic Information Policy and Law Report, 2 (23), 890–94.
38.
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995), 115 S.Ct. 1585.
39.
Sable Communications of California Inc. v. FCC (1994), 512 U.S. 622.
40.
ScharlottBradford W. (1990), “The First Amendment Protection of Advertising in the Mass Media,” in Advertising and Commercial Speech: Readings from Communications and the Law 4, Hon. KupfermanTheodore R., ed. Westport, CT: Meckler,1–16.
41.
Shea v. Reno (1996), 930 F. Supp. 916.
42.
SmollaRodney A. (1993), “Information, Imagery, and the First Amendment: A Case for Expansive Protection of Commercial Speech,”Texas Law Review, 74(4), 777–804.
43.
Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad (1975), 420 U.S. 546.
44.
State of New York v. Barrows (1997), 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 473, Cr. 15872/96 (S.Ct., Kings County, NY, September 26).
45.
StrandPeter J. (1996), “Advertising Online,” in Online Law: The SPA's Legal Guide to Doing Business on the Internet, SmedinghoffThomas J., ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,347–60.
46.
TeeterDwight L., and Le DucDon R. (1995), Law of Mass Communications: Freedom and Control of Print and Broadcast Media, 8th ed.Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.
47.
Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1994), 114 S.Ct. 2445.
48.
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), 316 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315.
49.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens’ Consumer Council Inc. (1976), 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817.
50.
WatkinsJohn J. (1997) “Lawyer Advertising, the Electronic Media, and the First Amendment,”Arkansas Law Review, 49(Winter), 739–82.
51.
WilcoxGary B. (1990), “Implications of First Amendment Doctrine on Prohibition of Truthful Price Advertising Concerning Alcoholic Beverages,” in Advertising and Commercial Speech: Readings from Communications and the Law 4, Hon. KupfermanTheodore R., ed. Westport, CT: Meckler,31–48.
