Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and Online Gaming

¶ … 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 felons will claim that they mistook real images for virtual images, resulting in criminals being let off (Hudson, 2004). 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 Communications Law Journal, 55(1), 85-98.

Online Gaming

In the United States, much contention has been developing over the stance the federal government should take with regard to online gaming. As of 1999, the United States has enforced the Online Gambling Prohibition Act, which expressly forbids any American citizen from playing online gambling games where real currency is exchanged. Regardless of this, it has been reported that American citizens represent between 50 to 70% of internet gaming customers worldwide (Parke, 2004). As with most prohibition laws, this law is being challenged at all levels and the Constitutionality called into question.

The first argument presently given is that the internet is a non-regulated forum, similar to any public forum and thus the first amendment and the property rights that go with it are in place. This includes the right to spend one's property as one sees fit. Many would argue, however, that gambling is highly addicting and too detrimental to be permitted, especially in a scenario where time spent is unlimited (Wu, 2003). Thus, the real question for the court would be the limits of the first amendment regarding how people spend their personal assets.