Abstract:The most significant legal case in the history of the Internet is the U.S. Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , which held that a federal law against online indecency was unconstitutional. a Reno was one of the earliest truly "Internet" cases, and it established two foundational precedents. First, adults have a First Amendment right to speak and listen to each other, even if some of that speech is indecent, offensive, or unsuitable for children. Second, Internet services are not responsible for verifying the ages of their users, even if some children manage to see speech meant for adults. For years, these propositions were so deeply woven into the fabric of Internet law that they were often simply taken for granted. But times change, and we are now living through the most eventful era in Internet law since the 1990s. The post- Reno consensus around how the First Amendment applies online may be unraveling. In subsequent Communications Law and Technology columns, I will take stock of some of the ways in which free-speech law could shift rapidly, including state social-media laws, government use of social media, and intermediary liability. In this column, I will start by looking at a new wave of U.S. state laws that explicitly require age verification. Although these laws are inconsistent with Reno , some of them have been holding up in court. The story of how states drafted their new laws to get around Reno is a striking, perhaps even shocking, story of legal creativity. The CDA and Reno The first major Internet speech legislation in the U.S. was the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). As its name suggests, the CDA was intended to make the Internet family-friendly by shielding children from seeing adult content online. (Today, the CDA is most famous for including "Section 230," a broad immunity that protects Internet platforms from being held liable for user-posted content. The immunity was bundled with the anti-indecency provisions as part of a legislative compromise.) The impetus for the CDA was a moral panic driven by the sudden arrival of the Internet in general public awareness in the 1990s. Anti-pornography activists and family-values conservatives worried that the Internet would be an unregulated free-for-all where children, both witting and unwitting, could easily find uninhibited depictions and discussions of sexuality. Public fears were fueled by an academic study that seemed to show that the Internet was awash in pornography. It quickly emerged that the study was actually an undergraduate paper with serious methodological problems and that its conclusions had been badly misrepresented, but the damage was done. Time magazine ran a cover story in July 1995 featuring a small child, face bathed in the bluish glow from a computer screen, staring at the camera in wide-eyed shock. The CDA passed the next year as a direct and probably inevitable response to public and political fear of online pornography. Specifically, it prohibited Internet services from showing any "obscene or indecent" or "patently offensive" content to users less than 18 years old. Two broad coalitions of media, technology, and civil-liberties groups filed suit, alleging that the CDA was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. The case was popular among technologists and website operators, many of whom posted GIFs of a blue ribbon on their sites as a protest. It was perhaps the last time the "the Internet community" spoke with one voice about anything. In 1997, the Supreme Court in Reno struck down these parts of the CDA. While laws against obscenity are allowed under the First Amendment, it protects both indecent and offensive speech for adults. The fact that speech might be harmful to minors does not necessarily make it harmful to adults, and plenty of adults willingly and legally exchange indecent speech, from dirty jokes to erotic fan fiction. The government may not "reduce the adult population ... to reading only what is fit for children." b That left age verification. If a website could perfectly distinguish between children and adults, then in theory it could block children while allowing adults to read the material that was legal for them. Indeed, the CDA included a partial defense for online services that used a credit card or other identification to establish adulthood. Reno held, however, that the theoretical possibility of using age verification could not save the CDA. Offline laws that prohibit selling cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography to minors assume, more or less correctly, that it is possible to tell children and adults apart. A storeowner can refuse to sell adult mag -Abstract Truncated-

The Return of Age Verification Laws

Online Age Verification: Government Legislation, Supplier Responsibilization, and Public Perceptions

Mandatory age verification for pornography access: Why it can't and won't 'save the children'

Rebooting Internet Immunity

A plea for caution: violent video games, the Supreme Court, and the role of science

From Research Conclusions to Real Change: Understanding the First Amendment's (Non)Response to the Negative Effects of Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Game Regulations

The U.S. "space" Standard of Internet Erotic Speech——From ACLU Case to ALA Case

Toward Textual Internet Immunity

The governance of the internet and the public health implications of drug sales

Pushing Back on Stricter Copyright ISP Liability Rules

Internet service providers as subjects of prevention of sexual crime on the Internet

Problems of the constitutional regulation of Internet platforms in United States of America

The Myth of Children’s Online Privacy Protection

Pornography, the Online Safety Act 2023 and the need for further reform

Chat Control or Child Protection?

Putting the Count Back Into Accountability: An Analysis of Transparency Data About the Sexual Exploitation of Minors

The Guardian of the Digital Era: Assessing the Impact and Challenges of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act

Bare necessities: the argument for a ‘revenge porn’ exception in Section 230 immunity

Big Tech's Tightening Grip on Internet Speech

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and the Internet: Lessons and Loopholes in Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Save the Children: The Protection of Minors in the Information Society and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive