The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

[1] Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, which advocates for people who practice non-traditional sexual practices, sought a similar ruling against the "obscene speech" provisions of the CDA and injunctive relief against future application of those sections of the CDA, arguing that the differences in community standards of what is considered "obscene speech" would have a "chilling effect" on any content on the Internet.

Alberto Gonzales was the Attorney General of the United States at the time, making him the named defendant in this case.

§ 223(a)(1)(B) criminalizes conduct which "knowingly ...makes, creates or solicits, and ... initiates the transmission of ..." an obscene or indecent communication to a juvenile.

"Given the size of the potential audience for most messages, in the absence of a viable age verification process, the sender [of any given communication] must be charged with knowing that one or more minors will likely view it.