Ashcroft V Free Speech Coalition Summary

The “Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition” case was argued on October 30, 2001 by the Attorney General Ashcroft. It was a case to decide if the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA) was constitutional or not (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition). The CPPA prohibits “any visual depiction including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that convey the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). “It took place at the United States Supreme Court

Therefore, the lower courts’ decisions were reversed (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition) (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). The following justices agreed with the CPPA: Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer. There were three justices that disagreed with the CPPA: Justice O’Connor, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Scalia (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Justice O’Connor explained that the CPPA should not ban pornography using youthful-looking adults. Justice Rehnquist agrees and explains that the CPPA should not ban pornography it should have a limiting instruction so that only material which is not protected/prohibited should be ban/ punished (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition). Justice Scalia also disagreed with the CPPA (Ashcroft v. Free Speech

One case they used was Miller v. California. This case helped them because the Miller Standard was made after the decision of the Miller v. California case. Another case was New York v. Ferber. This case distinguished child pornography from other sexually explicit speech because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process (United States Supreme Court). During this case, the Constitution was interpreted as a living constitution. The “War of Words” article states “Not all cases are so hard to decide since some parts of the constitution are quite specific. But many of the Constitution’s key provisions- like “freedom of speech” are more abstract.” This explains that as our world changes the interpretation will change. In the case “Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition” the interpretation is one way but that could be different from today’s interpretation