Final answer:
The US Supreme Court ruled parts of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 unconstitutional, burdening free speech rights with its vague definition of 'indecent material' and not being the least drastic means of restricting children's access to such content online.
Step-by-step explanation:
The US Supreme Court did indeed find that parts of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 were unconstitutional. The case Reno v. ACLU challenged the Act's provisions. The Court held that the CDA was not content neutral, too vague, and not the least drastic means to prevent minors from accessing indecent material online.
The Supreme Court's decision centered on the fact that the Act suppressed a sizable amount of speech that was constitutionally protected for adults. This suppression, often referred to as a 'chilling effect', stemmed from the law's ambiguity regarding what constituted 'indecent' content. The Court proposed alternatives such as having a website rating system or the use of filtering software rather than criminal punishment to address the concerns over children's access to indecent content.
Moreover, the concept of obscenity is usually defined by the Miller test, where material is considered obscene if it fails to comply with community standards, depicts sexual activities in an offensive manner, and lacks serious artistic, political, or scientific value. However, it is worth noting that the Court has often struggled with defining 'indecency' and 'obscenity' due to varying community standards and the evolving nature of media.