Ashcroft V Free Speech Coalition 2002

Title and Year

Ashcroft V Free Speech Coalition

2002

Court

Rehnquist

Majority Opinion

Anthony Kennedy

Facts/Brief Background

The Child Online Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) prohibits "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Free Speech Coalition, the trade association of the pornography industry, filed a lawsuit in the district court claiming that “appears to be” and “conveys” provisions of the COPA are extremely broad and are abridging the provisions of the Freedom of Speech granted by the 1st amendment and also it bans the materials that are not considered obscene under the Miller test put forth in Miller V California. The district court ruled that those provisions of the act were unconstitutional. The case was appealed and it reached the Supreme Court.

Issue

Does the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 abridge freedom of speech where it where it proscribes a significant universe of speech that is neither obscene under Miller v. California nor child pornography under New York v. Ferber?

Ruling & Legal Doctrine

The court ruled in favor of Free Speech Coalition. Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion stated that the provisions of CPPA are very broad and do not satisfy the Miller Test and Ferber Test put forward in previous cases. It fails the Miller test because CPPA prohibition of obscenity is not based on the community standards. It was also found inconsistent with Ferber because CPPA would criminalize actions that would not have caused any trouble or crime or wouldn’t have produced any victims and all of these are violations of the Ferber decision. Moreover, the government could not produce substantial support for the dire necessity to protect those provisions. So the court ruled that some provisions of the CPPA are in violation of the Miller and Ferber test and also violates the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment and so those provisions are unconstitutional.

Significance

The case was very significant in the adult entertainment industry. CPPA almost brought the closure of the industry by imposing strict restrictions. The industry started to thrive after the struck down of the provisions of the CPPA. But the government has been trying to put forward a legislature to protect the minors from the obscene and adult content. In 2003, Congress passed more succinct legislature to save minors from the adult content called the Protect Act of 2003. The court has upheld the constitutionality of that law.

Adhithyanr 21:40, April 26, 2011 (UTC)