"As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."

". . . Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment."

". . . indecency has not been defined to exclude works of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

". . . the CDA thus presents a greater threat of censoring speech that, in fact, falls outside the statute's scope. Given the vague contours of the coverage of the statute, it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection. "

". . . it interferes with the rights of adults to obtain constitutionally protected speech and effectively 'reduce[s] the adult population . . . to reading only what is fit for children.' "

• Full text of Supreme Court decision