November 5, 2011
Facts:
In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the American Civil Liberties union challenged Congress’ Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA was aimed at protection minors from seeing sexually explicit online materials. COPA was created as a result of the Communications Decency Act being found unconstitutional on the grounds of being overbroad and too restrictive (in Reno v. ACLU). Under COPA, adult visitors to certain Internet sites would have to enter identification to view the site (such as a credit card number or identification number). The ACLU argued that COPA unconstitutionally infringed on First Amendment rights to free speech because the government is deciding what content to restrict. A federal District Court agreed with the ACLU, stating that there were less restrictive measures to ensure the protection of minors than outlined in COPA. The Third Circuit court affirmed the District Court’s decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal issue:
Does COPA violate the First Amendment?
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld that COPA violates First Amendment speech.
Analysis:
COPA violates First Amendment speech because it could prevent adults from viewing legal forms of speech. There are less restrictive options such as blocking software or filters. Adults without children should be able to see any material they wish without identification. Concerned adults with children should use filters and turn them off when they wish to view certain content.
Questions:
Do filters work?
What’s the problem with having to enter identification to view content?
How does the Supreme Courts decision uphold First Amendment rights?
One thought on “Ashcroft V. ACLU (2004)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:35 am
1. Yes, I do think filters work for children who will be using the Internet. Often, with my experiences with filters on high school computers, filters generally block more than what was originally intended, with a “better safe than sorry” mentality. It is up to the parents, however, to regularly maintain the filters and ensure they are working properly.
2. The problem with entering identification to view content is it is too restrictive. It is also dangerous, because it opens the possibility for hackers and Internet predators to more easily gain access to others’ personal information. Many people are scared to submit identification information online and would therefore not be able to fully utilize their right to access content on the Internet.
3. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds First Amendment rights because it gives everyone the freedom of speech, expression and press online. The decision stopped government from having the authority to regulate what people can and cannot freely say without filters.