ABSTRACT
The law proposed six-month jail terms and fines of up to $50,000 for violators, and it was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a violation of free speech. In response to the ACLU and American Library Association's challenge to the Communication Decency Act, the government argued that by not controlling indecent material on the Internet, countless citizens are being driven away from the medium. The Supreme Court's decision reflected both the optimism the appellate court displayed for the marketplace of ideas and the concerns lawmakers have had about a wide-open Internet. The legal progression of the marketplace of ideas philosophy must be accompanied by the social understanding of the limitations of any marketplace. According to one interpretation, the Janet Reno decision indicated that a majority of the Court had accepted the notion that the Internet was a brand-new location for the marketplace of ideas and therefore had come to champion the marketplace philosophy.
