Explain why the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) were unconstitutional

What will be an ideal response?

The provision of the CDA criminalized and prohibited the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under age 18 by means of telecommunications devices or through the use of interactive computer services. The Supreme Court found that these provisions of the CDA were content-based blanket restrictions on freedom of speech. Because these provisions of the statute were too vague and overly broad, repressing speech that adults have the right to make, these provisions were found to be unconstitutional.
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) imposed a $50,000 fine and six months of imprisonment on individuals who posted material for commercial purposes that was harmful to minors. Websites that required individuals to submit a credit card number or some other form of age verification, however, were not in violation of the act. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that this act was also unconstitutional, as the provisions of the act likely violated the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that COPA was not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest, and the regulations were not the least restrictive methods of regulating in this area, as filtering programs could more easily restrict minors' access to obscene material than could criminal penalties.