This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
The plaintiff comes first in the title of a supreme court case. Therefore, I propose the title of this article be changed to reflect the nature of the case. ---184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The court report at FindLaw lists it as Reno v. ACLU, as does virtually every other reference to it on the Internet. I think what happened is this: in the District Court the case was presumably ACLU v. Reno, because as you point out the original plaintiff was the ACLU. But when the federal government appealed to the SC for expedited review, they became the plaintiff in the appeal case, because technically they were asking the SC to overturn an injunction from a lower court. - htonl (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoever appealed the case to the Supremes always comes first. The party on the left is "petitioner"; on the right is "respondent" regardless of who started the case. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is lacking in references. The one for firstamendementcenter.org is broken and no longer links to an article. I propose it should be removed but it would be ideal for there to be new reference material for this article. Maybe the following link would be good? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.htmlSwat510 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)