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.
Writing in dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the CPPA was merely a natural extension of Ferber, and the new law seemed intended to be used only to prosecute those individuals distributing materials known to use real children.
Holding: Court's reasoning and policy implications:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, found in favor of the Free Speech Coalition, and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to strike down the relevant statutes. Critical to Kennedy's decision was the government's radical reformulation of the obscenity standard in Miller. To be banned under the CPPA standard, the materials in question "need not appeal to the prurient interest. Any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented, is proscribed," even though there was no clear physical threat to a child, according to the Ferber standard. The government was suppressing lawful speech (speech not using children to produce sexual content) in an effort to suppress unlawful speech, alleging that allowing sexualized images...
Kennedy found the government's contention that created images of sexualized children were the same as real images of children in the eyes of readers to be implausible, and overly broad in terms of its legal outreach.
The court's ruling was important, not simply because of its implications for pornography statutes, but also because of its relevance to the regulation of all online and 'photoshopped' images. Had the CPPA act stood, conceivably creators of online images could have been held responsible for the potential thoughts and impressions their creations might inspire: the creation of violent or sexual images, if it could be mistaken for the 'real thing' could be subject to censorship, simply for appearing to suggest that someone was treated in a violent or sexual manner.
Reference
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. (2002). University of Cornell. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html
Reference
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. (2002). University of Cornell. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html
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
1st Amendment Protections for Child Pornography: The 2002 Decision in the Case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Laws have been passed outlawing child pornography in its various formats. It is forbidden by law to use a minor younger than age eighteen for visual depictions of sexually explicit acts. Possessions of such photographs are forbidden, and in 1966 the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) forbade trafficking in visual productions of
Then I ferret for poetry on the specific subject that boosts me. Generally, I love Tennyson and Emily Dickinson; perhaps I go, as I do in literature, for the relevant and inspiring. Poems that have had the greatest impact on me include Joaquin Miller's Columbus: particularly the stanza: What shall I say, brave Admiral, say, If we sight naught but seas at dawn?" "Why, you shall say at break of day, 'Sail on!
("Supreme Court Rejects..." 2002) More constitutional problems have been encountered in the law's battle against child pornography as a federal court in September 2004 outlawed a Pennsylvania State law that required internet service providers (ISPs) to block websites containing child pornography. The Court considered the technology used in the blocking of such sites as clumsy that could cause "massive suppression" of constitutionally protected speech. Apart from conducting a legal "balancing
1st Amendment and Virtual Child Pornography The question whether "virtual child pornography" should be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution depends on whether it is a category of speech that falls under the free speech guarantee of this constitutional provision. The First Amendment in its relevant part provides that "Congress shall make no law & #8230; abridging the freedom of speech." The constitutional guarantee of free speech is
McGovern's failed candidacy reshaped the Democrats. His followers gave full convention voting expression to a gamut of groups who make up the "liberal coalition." Despite the unpopularity of the Vietnam War, President Richard Nixon won by an unprecedented landslide against his Democratic rival, Senator George McGovern. ("The Presidential Election of 1972," 2005) The incumbent Nixon received 61% of the popular vote and 520 votes in the Electoral College to McGovern's