In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of two provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and found they violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The provisions, which prohibited to any recipient under 18 years of age (1) the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages and (2) the knowing display of patently offensive messages, were found to be constitutionally infirm because the provisions were both vague and overbroad. (Reno, supra, 521 U.S. at pp. 871-879.) As the court explained, the CDA failed to define the terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" leaving a speaker to wonder exactly what type of speech would violate the statute. ( Id. at p. 871.) In addition, the CDA was a content-based regulation of speech that would have a chilling effect on speech, as speakers may very well "remain silent rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images." ( Id. at p. 872.) Moreover, the statue regulated a large amount of protected speech even though there were less restrictive alternatives available. ( Id. at pp. 874-879.) Furthermore, the statute "would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a 'heckler's veto,' upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would-be discoursers that his 17-year-old child ... would be present." ( Id. at p. 880.) These faults led the court to conclude the provisions violated the First Amendment.