Search results
The Free Speech Coalition (P) argued that this federal law violated the First Amendment. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 prevents speech which is not obscene or child pornography, and so impinges on the freedom of speech and violates the constitution.
Brief Fact Summary. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 – that prohibited child pornography to sexually explicit images that depict minors but are produced without using any real children – was challenged.
30 paź 2001 · The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment trade association, and others filed suit, alleging that the "appears to be" and "conveys the impression" provisions are overbroad and vague and, thus, restrain works otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals held the CPPA invalid on its face, ...
The Free Speech Coalition challenged the CPPA on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. They argued that the act was overbroad and vague, suppressing a significant amount of protected speech.
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]
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, case in which, on April 16, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision that provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 were vague and overly broad and thus violated the free-speech protection contained in the First.
