([word=held] [!word=that] [!word=the])? □
([word=held] [!word=that] [!word=the])? □ □
([word=held] [!word=that] [!word=the])? (□ | □)
The plaintiffs argued - - and the three-judge lower court panel agreed - - that because there is no way to shield minors alone from online " indecency , " the CDA amounts to a criminal ban on constitutionally protected communication among adults . As the three-judge court found , because there is no way to shield minors alone from online " indecency " in the vast majority of contexts , the CDA amounts to a criminal ban on constitutionally protected communication among adults . The ACLU argued - - and a three-judge panel agreed - - that because there is no way to shield minors alone from online " indecency , " the CDA amounts to a criminal ban on constitutionally protected communication among adults . First , because the CDA 's defenses are completely unavailable for the vast majority of speakers , the trial court held that the CDA amounts to a criminal ban on constitutionally protected speech among adults .