Chapter 8

Question 1

Shielding children from access to sexually explicit material

Answer 1

Congress passed Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) and Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) attempting to regulate transmission of material to minors

Question 2

Shielding children-Reno vs. ACLU (1997)-Precedent, Fact

Answer 2

Precedent:
Facts: ACLU sued saying CDA was against 1st. Challenged the indecent transmission provision and patently offensive display provision

Question 3

Shielding children-Reno vs. ACLU (1997)-Question, Opinion

Answer 3

Question: Does the regulation of these two provisions in the CDA violate the 1st am right of speech?
Opinion:
Majority (Stevens): Since CDA is content regulated, is special. It has chilling effect, blocks speech and is a criminal statute. Miller test more defined so N/A. Lacks precision and protecting minors inhibits lots of adult speech. Free speech>theoretical (unproven) harm.
Concur/Dissent (O’Connor, CJ): Congress trying to make an adult zone are-zoning law only works if adults can still get speech. But, can ban if adult knowingly contacts minor

Question 4

Prohibiting Child Pornography

Answer 4

Ferber case addressed film-but Internet is different and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition challenged 1996 Child Porn Prevention Act (CPPA). They used computer graphics to make children for images. Initially was illegal, but overturned in 1999 because it inhibited speech based on danger it could encourage illegal acts. Said CPPA goes beyond protection of children and serves as way more than a supplement to obscenity. It can inhibit works of art, literature, science or politics.

Question 5

Child Pornography-US vs. Williams (2008)-Precedent, Facts

Answer 5

Precedent: PROTECT is held up
Facts: Congress could only block child porn with real children, and in response congress passed PROTECT to end child exploitation by banning pandering and solicitation of child porn (aka selling, advertising, promoting, etc). Williams was found on a chat room promoting images of child porn (via hyperlink) and his home was seized (found more). Plead guilty, but also argued that PROTECT was over broad and not pandering

Question 6

Child Pornography-US vs. Williams (2008)-Question, Opinion

Answer 6

Question: Is PROTECT narrowly tailored enough?
Opinion:
Majority (Scalia): It is not too vague, because vagueness definition is different.
Concur (Stevens & Breyer): If artistic, etc. or pornographic, but not obscene (and not kids) is actually okay.
Dissent (Souter & Ginsburg): No child actually needs to be shown and sometimes this material is fake (aka adult plays a child). Over broad may cause less porn to be produced and infringe on speech.