Ashcroft v American Civil Liberties Union 535 US 564 2004
On June 29, 2004, the United States Supreme Court held by a five tofour margin that in the case of Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union535 U.S. 564 (2004), a district court judge did not abuse his discretion inissuing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Child OnlineProtection Act, COPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec 231, (OLR 2004). The Court's rationalewas that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail at trial on their argumentthat there were plausible, less restrictive alternatives to the statute,particularly blocking or filtering software (OLR 2004). Two of the justicesin the majority also joined in a concurring opinion, finding otherconstitutional defects in the law and of the four justices who dissented,three asserted that the law was the least restrictive alternative becauseit regulated a very small amount of lawful speech (OLR 2004). Dissentingseparating was Justice Scalia, who argued that since the commercialpornography covered by COPA could be banned entirely, the law's lesserrestrictions raised no constitutional concerns (OLR 2004). COPA imposes a $50,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment forknowingly posting on the World Wide Web, for commercial purposes, material
Constitution's FirstAmendment (Reno v. accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or 3. This material is defined as anycommunication, picture, image, graphic image, file, article, recording,writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that: "1. Although on different grounds, the Third Circuit Court of appealsaffirmed, stating that the "community standards" language in COPA by itselfrendered the statute unconstitutionally over-broad (217 F. Moreover, theCourt's endorsement of using filtering software seems a better alternativethan those posed in COPA. The Court's decision to affirm the preliminary injunction and remandfor trial allows both parties to update and supplement the factual recordin order to reflect current technology (Legal 2004). The statute applies only to a person who, "as a regular course of such person's trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit," 47 U. Moreover, remand willallow the District Court to take account of a changed legal landscapebecause since the time that court made its fact-findings, "Congress haspassed at least two further statues that might qualify as less restrictivealternatives to COPA: a prohibition on misleading domain names, and astatue creating a minors-safe 'dot-Kids' domain" (Legal 2004). Although, Stevens agreed with the majority's conclusion that encouragingdeployment of user-based controls would serve Congress' interest inprotecting minors from sexually explicit Internet materials, he argued thatthe Child Online Protection Act had other constitutional defects (OLR2004). Justice Breyer, joined by the chief justice and Justice O'Connor,dissented, saying: ". COPA provides an affirmativedefense to those who take steps to prevent minors from gaining access tothe prohibited materials on their web site (OLR 2004).
Common topics in this essay:
Wide Web,
Justice Scalia,
Protection Act,
Supreme Court,
Pennsylvania OLR,
Protection Act's,
Reno ACLU,
USC Sec,
Justice O'Connor,
District Court,
olr 2004,
district court,
child online protection,
online protection,
child online,
protection act,
restrictive alternatives,
legal 2004,
online protection act,
preliminary injunction,
supreme court,
harmful materials,
olr 2004 copa,
olr 2004 court,
world wide web,
|
Acceptance Essays
