First this is not a hard question to answer. Virtual freedom of speech is just speech in a cyber world. Dose that change the fact that it’s still in most cases a person typing the words. The supreme court ruled, and JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
“At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted to protect minors from “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges “the freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment.1” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/case.html
). While this is on part of the ruling it is the part that makes in my opinion virtual freedom of speech the same as if someone said it out of their mouth. Reno was trying to address a pin point issues which in true narrowed the scope of the suit to much.
Finally, Justice Stevens found that the Internet was analogous to the print media, not the broadcast media, and thus entitled to be left alone to foster the free exchange of ideas. “[F]reedom of expression in a democratic society,” Stevens wrote, “outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship” (p. 885) Pg.7.6, Ivers, G. (2013). Without the free exchange of ideas, it’s the same as censorship, nothing can progress when we don’t transfer information. We know that in this country nothing goes unnoticed so as soon as someone tries to place limits on something were up in arms. The more advanced we become the harder it’s going to get freedom of speech in a true form. Because it will become harder to define what it really is online or otherwise. If we think back to the founders and what they wanted free speech to be. It would whole that must form of communication would pass the test.