---
title: "Reno v. ACLU | Civil Rights"
description: "Reno v. ACLU is the 1997 Supreme Court case that struck down internet speech limits in the Communications Decency Act under the First Amendment."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/reno-v-aclu"
type: "key-term"
subject: "Civil Rights and Civil Liberties"
unit: "Unit 2"
---

# Reno v. ACLU | Civil Rights

## Definition

Reno v. ACLU is the 1997 Supreme Court case that struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act because they censored online speech. In Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, it is a major First Amendment case about internet freedom.

## What It Is

Reno v. ACLU is a Supreme Court case about whether the government can limit indecent or offensive speech on the internet. In Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, you usually meet it in the First Amendment and freedom of the press unit, where it shows how constitutional protections adapt to new media.

The case came out of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that tried to protect minors by restricting certain online material. The problem was that the law used broad language like “indecent” and “patently offensive,” which could sweep in a lot of protected speech, not just obscene content. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged those rules, arguing that they chilled lawful expression.

The Supreme Court agreed. In a unanimous decision, the Court said the internet deserves strong First Amendment protection and that the government cannot use vague, overbroad standards to silence speech online. That matters because the Court treated the internet more like a high-protection public forum than broadcast media, which had historically been regulated more heavily.

A big idea in the case is overbreadth. If a law is written too broadly, people may avoid speaking at all because they are not sure what is allowed. That is called a chilling effect, and it is exactly the kind of problem civil liberties cases look for when courts judge speech restrictions.

Reno v. ACLU also fits into the bigger story of press and speech rights in the digital age. The case does not say the internet is totally unregulated, but it does set a high bar for content-based restrictions. If the government wants to limit online speech, it has to do it with much more precision than the CDA did.

So when you see Reno v. ACLU in this subject, think of a First Amendment case that protects online expression and limits vague content regulation.

## Why It Matters

Reno v. ACLU matters because it shows how courts apply free speech principles to new technology. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is full of cases where the same constitutional text gets tested in a new setting, and this one shows that the First Amendment is not frozen in the era of newspapers or pamphlets.

It also gives you a clean example of how judges think about vague laws. If a statute can be read too broadly, it can punish protected speech along with unprotected speech. That is a useful pattern to recognize in essays and case comparisons, especially when you are discussing censorship, regulation, or the balance between protecting minors and protecting expression.

This case connects directly to the course’s broader theme of civil liberties versus government power. It asks a classic question: when does regulation become censorship? Reno v. ACLU answers that content restrictions on speech need narrow wording and strong justification, especially when the medium is the internet.

The decision also helps explain why online speech is often discussed differently from broadcast speech or print speech. If a prompt asks how constitutional rights change with technology, this case is one of the best examples you can use.

## Connections

### First Amendment

Reno v. ACLU is a First Amendment case at its core. The Court used free speech principles to strike down a law that was too vague and too broad, which shows how the amendment protects expression even when the government says it is trying to protect minors.

### Communications Decency Act

This was the federal law challenged in the case. It tried to regulate indecent internet content, but its wording went too far and captured protected speech, which is why the Court found it unconstitutional.

### Content Regulation

The case is a strong example of content-based regulation getting shut down. In civil liberties, you look closely at whether the government is regulating speech because of what it says, and Reno v. ACLU shows that the Court is wary of broad content rules online.

### [American Civil Liberties Union](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/american-civil-liberties-union)

The ACLU was the group that challenged the law and helped bring the case to the Supreme Court. In this subject, that makes it a good example of a civil liberties organization using the courts to challenge government limits on speech.

## On the AP Exam

A case ID question may ask you to match Reno v. ACLU with internet speech, the First Amendment, or the Communications Decency Act. In a short answer or essay, you would use it to show that vague content restrictions can violate free speech rights. If a prompt asks how the Court treats new communication technology, this case is a strong example that online speech gets serious constitutional protection. You can also use it to compare government attempts to regulate media with earlier press freedom cases.

## Reno v. ACLU vs Miller v. California

These cases are both about limits on speech, but they are not the same. Miller v. California deals with obscenity, while Reno v. ACLU deals with internet speech and a law that was too vague and broad. If a question is about online content regulation, Reno v. ACLU is the better match.

## Key Takeaways

- Reno v. ACLU is a 1997 Supreme Court case that protected online speech from broad government censorship.
- The Court struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act because the law used vague terms and could suppress lawful expression.
- The case is a major First Amendment precedent for the internet, not just a general free speech example.
- It shows how civil liberties law looks at overbreadth and chilling effects when evaluating speech restrictions.
- Use it when a prompt asks how constitutional rights apply to digital communication or new media.

## FAQs

### What is Reno v. ACLU in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?

Reno v. ACLU is a Supreme Court case that struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act because they restricted protected speech on the internet. In this subject, it is a major First Amendment case about online free expression and government censorship.

### Why did the Supreme Court strike down the Communications Decency Act?

The Court said the law used vague and overbroad terms like “indecent” and “patently offensive,” which could block lawful speech along with unprotected speech. That kind of wording creates a chilling effect, so the Court found the restrictions unconstitutional.

### How is Reno v. ACLU different from cases about broadcast censorship?

The Court treated the internet as deserving stronger First Amendment protection than broadcast media. Broadcast rules have historically allowed more regulation, but Reno v. ACLU made clear that online speech should not be limited with the same broad approach.

### How do I use Reno v. ACLU in an essay?

Use it as evidence that the government cannot use vague content regulations to suppress speech online. It works well in essays about free speech, digital media, censorship, and the tension between protecting minors and protecting civil liberties.

## Related Study Guides

- [2.2 Freedom of the press](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-2/freedom-press/study-guide/h2O7xbML9xYLrMiq)

## About This Document

Canonical Fiveable pages are available as Markdown at the same path plus `.md`.

- [llms.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms.txt): index of Fiveable's sections and URL patterns
- [llms-full.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms-full.txt): complete subject and unit listing
- [MCP server](https://fiveable.me/mcp): call Fiveable as tools instead of fetching pages (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp`)
- [MCP server for AP teachers](https://fiveable.me/mcp/teachers): a teacher's classes, assignments and AP-rubric grading (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp/teacher`)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/reno-v-aclu#resource","name":"Reno v. ACLU | Civil Rights","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/reno-v-aclu","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/reno-v-aclu#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-07-03T02:21:15.319Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/reno-v-aclu#term","name":"Reno v. ACLU","description":"Reno v. ACLU is the 1997 Supreme Court case that struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act because they censored online speech. In Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, it is a major First Amendment case about internet freedom.","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/reno-v-aclu","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is Reno v. ACLU in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Reno v. ACLU is a Supreme Court case that struck down parts of the Communications Decency Act because they restricted protected speech on the internet. In this subject, it is a major First Amendment case about online free expression and government censorship."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why did the Supreme Court strike down the Communications Decency Act?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The Court said the law used vague and overbroad terms like “indecent” and “patently offensive,” which could block lawful speech along with unprotected speech. That kind of wording creates a chilling effect, so the Court found the restrictions unconstitutional."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is Reno v. ACLU different from cases about broadcast censorship?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The Court treated the internet as deserving stronger First Amendment protection than broadcast media. Broadcast rules have historically allowed more regulation, but Reno v. ACLU made clear that online speech should not be limited with the same broad approach."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How do I use Reno v. ACLU in an essay?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Use it as evidence that the government cannot use vague content regulations to suppress speech online. It works well in essays about free speech, digital media, censorship, and the tension between protecting minors and protecting civil liberties."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 2","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-2"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Reno v. ACLU"}]}]}
```