O'Connor would preserve some adult-to-minor restrictions
Sandra Day O'ConnorAssociate justice concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist
O'Connor would sustain limited adult-to-minor applications while agreeing that other applications burden adults' protected speech.
“Insofar as the "indecency transmission" and "specific person" provisions prohibit the use of indecent speech in communications between an adult and one or more minors, however, they can and should be sustained.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Reno v. ACLU: Stevens and O'Connor split over online indecency limits
The Supreme Court invalidated the challenged Communications Decency Act restrictions on online speech. Stevens's majority emphasized burdens on protected expression; O'Connor's partial dissent would preserve some restrictions on communications between adults and minors.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
O'Connor would preserve some adult-to-minor restrictions while agreeing that other applications burden adults' protected speech.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
O'Connor agrees that several provisions or applications improperly burden adult communications and would invalidate them to that extent.
After the quotation
She would sustain some adult-to-minor applications and dissents from the majority's contrary conclusion. Rehnquist joins her opinion.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the CDA restrictions as a whole, O'Connor rejects several applications but supports a limited adult-to-minor subset.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseStevens says the CDA places an unacceptable burden on protected speech
“We agree with the District Court's conclusion that the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech, and that the defenses do not constitute the sort of "narrow tailoring" that will save an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- O'Connor would preserve some adult-to-minor restrictions
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7066-o-connor-would-sustain-limited-adult-to-minor
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "O'Connor would preserve some adult-to-minor restrictions". First published: 2026-10-28. Last updated: 2026-10-28. https://disputeindex.com/events/7066-o-connor-would-sustain-limited-adult-to-minor