ASSIGNMENT 13: FIRST AMENDMENT

Case 1

Name and Citation:

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et.al. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION et.al. (2002)

Key Facts:

The1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act's (CPPA) two over board requirements were struck down by Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), as the provisions reduced the liberty of engaging in a considerable quantity of legal speech. The Free Speech Coalition brought the case in opposition Ron Raffaelli (photographer with erotic images as his speciality), Jim Gingerich (a person who painted naked people/images) and Bold Type Inc. (publisher of the book supporting nudist way of life), along with to the Government. An appeal to enhance the speech amount, which would be unconditionally outside the First Amendment's protection, was rejected by the court by striking down both of these provisions.

The Issue:

It was feared by the Free Speech Coalition the child pornography's enhanced definition by the Congress will jeopardize their lawful operations, and a lawsuit was filed in quest of enjoining implementation of Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 in the US Northern District California's District Court. It was alleged by the Free Speech coalition that both the provisions restricting (speeches that convey the impressions that the pictures show children engaged in sexual activities and pictures that seem to show minors occupied with sexual activities) were vague, overbroad and had a distressing impact on their lawful operations.

Holding and Vote:

No (Opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist)

Reasoning:

The claim was disagreed by the district court, stating that the claim of the provisions to be overbroad was baseless because it was extremely doubtful that every alteration of sexual contents such as Romeo and Juliet would be considered to be criminal contraband. It was concluded by the court that Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, restricts speech in spite of its serious scientific, political, artistic, or literary value. Especially, it restricts the visual representation of minors occupied in sexual activity such as Romeo and Juliet, American Beauty and Traffic. This is varying with an important rule of the First Amendment: The artistic value of any content does not rely on the existence of a solitary scene which is explicit.

Separate Opinions:

The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist started with an issue that the technology that is briskly progressing will momentarily make it quite complex to differentiate between pornography created with stimulated pictures of children and one that is made with real minors. The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist approved that critical First ...