What was the importance of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition?
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the Supreme Court struck down portions of the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 that banned “virtual child pornography,” which the justices said was neither obscene nor actual child pornography as defined by previous decisions.
Who was the US attorney general in the case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition?
John David Ashcroft
| Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of the United States | |
| 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 |
What does the First Amendment say about freedom of speech?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What decision did the US Supreme Court come up with in 2005?
ROPER v. By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 1, 2005 declared the execution of juvenile offenders to be unconstitutional. This historic ruling held that the practice violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.
What is the name of the law that was at issue in the USV Williams case?
Williams, 553 U.S. ____ (2008), the Supreme Court upheld part of a federal child pornography law known as the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, better known as the PROTECT Act, finding it was not in violation of the First Amendment right to free speech or …
What is exempt from Stanley v Georgia’s protection of obscene materials in the home?
Georgia (1969) In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the mere private possession of obscene materials could not be criminalized, consistent with the First Amendment, although it acknowledged that ownership of such materials is not protected speech.
What was the ideology of the Rehnquist court?
The Rehnquist Court is generally considered to be more conservative than the preceding Burger Court, but not as conservative as the succeeding Roberts Court….
| Rehnquist Court | |
|---|---|
| No. of positions | 9 |
| Rehnquist Court decisions |
What is the Rehnquist Court largely known for?
The Rehnquist Court (1986 – 2005) Ideologically, Chief Justice Rehnquist was known for a view of federalism that emphasized states’ rights. His was the first Court since the 1930s to strike down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.
Was the Protect Act Ruled Unconstitutional?
In the case United States v. Handley, district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act that criminalized certain depictions without having to go through the Miller test were overbroad and thus unconstitutional. Handley still faces an obscenity charge.
Did the Georgia statute infringe upon the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
How did the Rehnquist court differ from the Roberts Court?
The Rehnquist Court is generally considered to be more conservative than the preceding Burger Court, but not as conservative as the succeeding Roberts Court.
What is Ashcroft v Ashcroft summary?
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case which 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”.
What is the Free Speech Coalition case?
Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case which 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”.
What was the ruling in Free Speech Coalition v Reno?
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). The Court held that the two above provisions were unconstitutional because they abridged “the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech”.
Can the government suppress speech for advocating the use of force?
The government may suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law only if “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam).