Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
| Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 30, 2001 Decided April 16, 2002 |
|
| Full case name | John David Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. The Free Speech Coalition, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 00-795 |
| Citations | 535 U.S. 234 (more)
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
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| The Court held that the two above provisions were unconstitutional because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech." United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia (part II) |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Scalia (except for paragraph discussing legislative history) |
| Laws applied | |
| First Amendment, Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 | |
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech". The case was brought against the Government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry"; along with Bold Type, Inc., a "publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle"; Jim Gingerich, who paints nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer who specialized in erotic images. By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Prior case law had established two relevant categories of speech that were outside the protection of the First Amendment. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the Court had held that the First Amendment allowed the government to restrict obscenity. And in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), the Court held that the government could restrict the distribution of child pornography to protect children from the harm inherent in making it. The Court extended Ferber to mere possession of child pornography in Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).
...
Wikipedia