Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
2002 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that 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".[2] The case was brought against the U.S. 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.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
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 no. | 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 |
Case history | |
Prior | Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, 198 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1999); rehearing denied, 220 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 531 U.S. 1124 (2001). |
Holding | |
The prohibitions of §§ 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are 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 (in judgment) |
Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia (Part II) |
Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Scalia (except for paragraph discussing legislative history) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I; Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 | |
Superseded by | |
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act 2003 in part, c.f. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A[1] |