We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.
Advertiser Disclosure
Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.
How We Make Money
We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently of our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

What is the Communications Decency Act?

By Dale Marshall
Updated: May 17, 2024

The Communications Decency Act, also known as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, was enacted by the United States to regulate or prohibit certain activities involving telecommunications media and devices. Originally introduced in the Senate as independent legislation aimed at regulating or eliminating cyberspace indecency, it was subsequently expanded to include provisions covering adult content on cable television and obscene or harassing telephone calls. The Act was incorporated into the Telecommunications Act, which was being developed at the time as the the first substantial update of legislation in that field since the formation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1934.

Some of the activity that the Communications Decency Act tried to prohibit was obscene or harassing use of telecommunications devices like telephones, indecent programming on cable television, and the use of the Internet to transmit or access pornography. The Communications Decency Act also provided for the scrambling of cable television signals to block non-subscribers' access, especially adult-oriented programming, the right of cable operators to refuse to carry certain programs. The Act was one of the earliest attempts at Internet regulation, holding Internet service providers (ISPs) immune from legal action for any content provided by a third party. For example, if a child signed onto the Internet via the family computer and accessed a pornography website, the ISP couldn't be held liable. The Act also protects ISPs who either restrict certain material or provide users the means to restrict it, such as providing filtering software for parents to install on their children's computers.

The Communications Decency Act was immediately controversial because of the restrictions it attempted to impose on what many considered to be legitimate adult use of the Internet, in the name of protecting children from pornography. Two sections in particular criminalized the “knowing” transmission of “patently offensive, indecent or obscene materials,” via the Internet, to people under age 18. Suit was filed against these provisions the day they were enacted (February 8, 1996) and in early June 1996, a special Court convened for the purpose of hearing the case held that those two provisions violated the freedom of speech guarantee of the US Constitution. A year later, on June 27, 1997, the US Supreme Court affirmed that ruling and struck down the two provisions.

Unintended consequences arising from the Communications Decency Act involved the legal protection of Internet defamation. Section 230 protects Internet providers and users from liability for damage caused by material from a third party posted on their site. Primarily intended to protect hapless ISPs over whose bandwidth minors might access pornography, Section 230 also wound up protecting Internet defamation &emdash; that is, speech which, had it appeared in print, met the definition of libel.

Though most of the Communications Decency Act was relatively uncontroversial, the court challenge it faced immediately upon enactment illustrates some of the problems faced by a free society in protecting the rights of its people to freedom of expression while protecting its young from the more offensive exercises of that freedom.

America Explained is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Discussion Comments
By discographer — On Jun 28, 2014

@burcinc-- I'm glad you made this point because that's what this issue is truly about. The reason that people oppose the Communications Decency Act is not because they don't mind children watching porn. It's because they don't want a too powerful government that starts regulating everything.

The US was founded on the basis that the government would not become too controlling and impede on personal liberties. The American motto is limited government intervention and more individual rights. This is why some people worry about laws such as this one.

By burcinc — On Jun 28, 2014

@ysmina-- I don't agree with you. I think this type of regulation opens the door for more regulation and then slowly we will turn into a society that is tightly controlled by government. Parents are responsible for protecting their children from inappropriate content online, on television or elsewhere. The government is not responsible for it and should stay out of it.

By ysmina — On Jun 28, 2014

I think that the Communications Decency Act was an important and necessary step. I realize that there are opponents to it but I think everyone would agree that not everyone should have access to everything online. Especially when the computer use age has gone down to age 2 or 3. All children now have access to a computer or cell phone with internet. And it would be foolish to think that they do not need to be protected from certain type of content.

Although this Act was required, I personally don't think that it's enough. The internet is very difficult to regulate, some would even say that it's impossible. For example, although those under age 18 are not allowed to visit pornography sites, it's not difficult for them to do so. And there are other ways to get this type of content as well.

So I think that the Communication Decency Act needs to be expanded with more regulation imposed for some online content.

America Explained, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

America Explained, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.