Ashcroft V Free Speech Coalition Case Study
ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION 198 F. 3d 1083, affirmed. ( No. 00-795 )
(6-3) Kennedy, A. for the majority.
FACTS: In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court was given the task of deciding whether or not the Child Pornography Prevention Act or CPPA violated the First Amendment. If a violation of the First Amendment was proven the CPPA would have been found unconstitutional. The Free Speech Coalition, a part of the adult entertainment industry, felt that the language and ultimately the message conveyed by the CPPA was too broad and too vague and had the ability to be misused and could prevent future production.
ISSUES: Does the CPPA violate the First Amendment rights of the Free Speech Coalition?
HOLDING: Yes, (6-3). The CPPA is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment, the right to free speech. …show more content…
This is viewed as too broad and vague by the Free Speech Coalition. Under Miller v. California pornography can only be banned if it is considered obscene and without redeeming social value or rather if it would offend the average person. The problem with the CPPA was that even film and art, for example ideas produced centuries ago would be considered a violation. According to the First Amendment there is a difference between actions and words; although, certain categories of speech are protected especially those concerning children, those protected categories were not included in the CPPA. The speech used in the CPPA was not remarkable enough to persuade others to break the law; therefore, it cannot be banned. Because the language used was much too vague it was ruled that the prohibitions of the CPPA were overboard and
(6-3) Kennedy, A. for the majority.
FACTS: In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court was given the task of deciding whether or not the Child Pornography Prevention Act or CPPA violated the First Amendment. If a violation of the First Amendment was proven the CPPA would have been found unconstitutional. The Free Speech Coalition, a part of the adult entertainment industry, felt that the language and ultimately the message conveyed by the CPPA was too broad and too vague and had the ability to be misused and could prevent future production.
ISSUES: Does the CPPA violate the First Amendment rights of the Free Speech Coalition?
HOLDING: Yes, (6-3). The CPPA is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment, the right to free speech. …show more content…
This is viewed as too broad and vague by the Free Speech Coalition. Under Miller v. California pornography can only be banned if it is considered obscene and without redeeming social value or rather if it would offend the average person. The problem with the CPPA was that even film and art, for example ideas produced centuries ago would be considered a violation. According to the First Amendment there is a difference between actions and words; although, certain categories of speech are protected especially those concerning children, those protected categories were not included in the CPPA. The speech used in the CPPA was not remarkable enough to persuade others to break the law; therefore, it cannot be banned. Because the language used was much too vague it was ruled that the prohibitions of the CPPA were overboard and