PLS 460 Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition

PLS 460 Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition - Ashcroft v Free...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE FREE SPEECH COALITION ET AL. No. 00-795 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 535 U.S. 234; 122 S. Ct. 1389; 152 L. Ed. 2d 403; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 2789; 70 U.S.L.W. 4237; 30 Media L. Rep. 1673; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3211; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 4033; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 187 October 30, 2001, Argued April 16, 2002, Decided SUBSEQUENT H ISTORY: Costs and fees proceeding at Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9350 (9th Cir. Cal., May 23, 2005) PRIOR H ISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, 198 F.3d 1083, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32704 (9th Cir. Cal., 1999) DISPOSITION: 198 F.3d 1083 , affirmed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Respondents, an adult entertainment coalition and others, sued petitioners, the United States Attorney General and others, alleging that provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251 et seq. , abridged free speech. Upon the grant of a writ of certiorari, petitioners challenged the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held that the provisions were unconstitutional. OVERVIEW: Respondents contended that the CPPA's ban on sexually explicit images that appeared to depict minors, but were not produced using minors,
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
unconstitutionally proscribed protected speech. Petitioners argued that the prohibition of virtual child pornography was necessary to discourage the criminal conduct of pedophiles and to preclude a defense of virtual imaging in prosecuting actual child pornographers. The United States Supreme Court held that the ban on virtual child pornography was unconstitutionally overbroad since it proscribed speech which was neither child pornography nor obscene and thus abridged the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech. The visual depiction of teenage sexual activity was a common theme in acclaimed artistic works and a fact of modern society, and the CPPA unlawfully prohibited speech which recorded no
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Page1 / 4

PLS 460 Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition - Ashcroft v Free...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online