Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Ashcroft
US Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
In the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court presented even more arguments and reasons as to why online child pornography is prohibited. What this case failed to do is define how far the government's censorship can stretch. The controversial question lies in the phrasing from the COPA provisions where terms referring to virtual child pornography were struck out for being too broad (Mota 2002).
This case has proven among the more interesting regarding first amendment rights on the internet. Unlike most rulings by the Supreme Court where the majority of states agree on the ruling, this case came down with most districts agreeing instead with the dissent. Many arguments have now been presented as to why even virtual child pornography is an issue. Namely, the idea that producing child pornography can lead to pedophile behaviors (Mirkin, 2009). Additional arguments include the idea that arrested...
Overall, the arguments are logical, but thus far have not proven persuasive enough to the court.
Those in agreement with the ruling have one simple and yet very compelling argument. Simply stated, the first amendment is sacred to this country, so if Congress wants to limit this right it must be done with very specific drafting (Mota 2002). This is exactly the point and the one thing that congress has still failed to acknowledge.
Hudson, David (2004). Enforcing Morality. ABA Journal, 90, 14-16.
Mirkin, Harris (2009). The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(2), 233-267.
Mota, Sue (2002). The U.S. Supreme Court Addresses the Child Pornography Prevention Act and Child Online Protection Act in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union. Federal…
Balkin, Jack (2004). Virtual Liberty: Freedom to Design and Freedom to Play in Virtual Worlds. Virginia Law Review, 90(8), 2043.
Wu, Tim (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Telecom and High Tech. Law Review, 2, 141.
Parke, Adrian; Griffths, mark (2004). Why Internet Gambling Prohibition will Ultimately Fail. Gaming Law Review, 8(5), 295-299.
"[T]here remains a distinction between autonomy, the ability to think for oneself, and self-expression, the communicating of one's thoughts to others. Both are important components of our interest in free speech" (Lichtenberg, 336). Still some believe that any infringement upon the media would diminish the amount of true information disseminated into society. Truth, though, is filled with ambiguity and is intangible -- the "truth" of the media story is based
Freedom of Speech History of Case Gitlow v. New York Gitlow v.New York was a decision that was made by the supreme court of the United States on June 8, 1925 which ruled that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States extended the reach of limitations of the federal government authority that that had been set in the First amendment. The specific provisions were protection of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a human right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in the worlds of public and private employment, employers have some limited rights with regard to the things their employees can say. These generally differ for public and private employees. The main basis for this difference is the fact that public employees offer their services to the Government, which in turn is to act in
Freedom of Speech and Art "Freedom of speech' is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States. The constitution grants complete freedom of speech under the First Amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
Freedom of Speech In 1776, the United States Constitution was signed to protect the freedoms of every American and to solidify the rights that so many were currently fighting for. It was the government that implemented ways for everyone to have equal rights to express what ever they deemed appropriate without the fear of there being repercussions for their actions. That is no longer the case. The government now, instead of
Which is the better course of action, Lawrence might ask himself. Should we censor the Westboro Baptist Church and forbid them their right to free speech, or should we allow them to express their wacky, and perhaps injurious views, and fight back with words of compassion, caring, and support. Just because we would like to make a knee-jerk, reactionary law and censor them does not make it the right