The Internet became a very popular and enormous means of obtaining millions of different types of documents and information for everyday use in the late 1980s and the early 90s. It has become easy for anyone to access millions of different types of materials, ninety-nine percent of which are decent by our government's standards and one or less than one percent is considered indecent material or harmful to minors. (ABC) These facts may be disappointing though because there are millions of websites, so the Internet may only be 1% indecent, but that means there are thousands and thousands of sites that are indecent . (ABC) The biggest question is how can we protect our children from these indecent sites? The government said passing a bill banning indecent content on the Internet would help protect children who use the Internet. Thus, in 1996, Congress adopted the CDA (communications decency act) as well as the TCA (tela communications act). (Lewis) The TCA was designed and passed by Congress to consolidate indecent content from radio and television and the CDA was a last resort. minute add to this bill. (Serre) The CDA has never been heard before Congress and many members have questioned its constitutionality. Clition signed the bill, but it was understood that he hoped the courts would rule the bill unconstitutional. (Greenhouse) It became clear very quickly that this bill was going to cause problems. In June 1996, the same year the bill was passed. An Internet-based New York newspaper filed a lawsuit against the CDA saying, "This bill is a violation of not only my rights, but also a violation of the rights of the American people." . Long live the Internet,” said Joe Shea, editor in chief of The American Reporter, the electronic newspaper that challenged the law. » (Lewis) This case is not the first, however. In Philadelphia, a group of about 50 organizations filed a lawsuit against the CDA and the court ruled in their favor as well. (Lewis) More and more cases began to arise in the federal courts until December 1996, when they finally reached the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. (ACLU v. Janet Reno). The problem with the CDA was the fact that it did not clearly define indecent material. Many believed that the breadth of terminology used was intended to “safely protect” the rights of the men and women of America. Works Cited “American Civil Liberties Union v. Janet Réno.” May 11, 1996. May 2, 2005Childs, Kelvin. “Problems persist despite CDA’s decision.” . July 5, 1997: April 19, 2005 “Communications Decency Act; Gina Smith, Charels Gibson. Hello America. ABC. March 19, 1997. April 19, 2005 Dlouhy, Jennifer A. "Ruling suggests alternative to online pornography: making use of Internet filters mandatory." July 3, 2004. May 2, 2005Greenhouse, Lina. "Court, 9-0, upholds state laws banning assisted suicide; protects speech on the Internet." New York Times June 27, 1997. Children and civil rights. Talking from The Nation NPR, Washington DC. April 6, 1998. Lewis, Peter H. "Opponents of Internet Indecency Rules Win Another Case." The New York Times July 30, 1996. Electronic Library. April 19, 2005 “Cyberspace Police”. Editorial. The Nation March 1, 1999: n. pag."Supreme Court Upholds Children's Online Protection Act Preliminary Injunction." . September 1, 2004: 2005