Why did Reno v. ACLU strike down the indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act?

In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because they constituted an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.12

The Court identified several critical flaws in the legislation:

• Ambiguity: The terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" were found to be unconstitutionally vague, failing to provide clear guidance on what speech was prohibited.1
• Undue Burden: The provisions placed an "unacceptably heavy burden" on protected speech, effectively threatening to censor a vast segment of the internet.12
• Practical Impossibility: The law required senders to prevent minors from accessing certain materials, but at the time, there was no reliable or non-cumbersome way for online providers to verify the age of users.1
• Overbreadth: By criminalizing broad categories of online communication to protect minors, the CDA swept too widely, infringing upon the rights of adults to access and share constitutionally protected content.12

Ultimately, the Court ruled that the government's interest in protecting minors did not justify such a sweeping restriction on adult communication.12