The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult entertainment industry, filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Ashcroft challenging the constitutionality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The act banned any visual depiction, including computer generated images, that appeared to depict minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. While the goal was to protect children, the Free Speech Coalition argued it infringed on free speech rights. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, ruling the act prohibited speech that was not legally obscene.

1. Washington 5th period
Government
2.8.13

3.  Plaintiff: The Free Speech Coalition which is a trade association of the adult
entertainment industry
 Defendant: Ashcroft, who was an Attorney General

4.  The Free Speech Coalition filed a suit against Ashcroft for upholding the Child
Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.
 The act stated that any distribution, production, or selling of an image, video, or computer
generated image that appears to be “of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”
 The CPPA went to extreme measure to prevent children from pornography.
 It even banned speech that was not obscene to protect from exploitation.

5.  The free speech coalition filed a suit in the federal district court and the court ruled in
favor of the government and the Child Pornography Prevention Act
 Soon after, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision
 The Supreme Court granted a writ of Certiorar and heard oral arguments on October
30, 2001
 On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court made a decision that upheld the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals’ decision

6.  The first hearing took place in a federal district court
 The second hearing took place in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals located in
California
 The final court case took place in the Supreme Court in Washington D.C

7.  The government passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 1996 to protect
minors from the exploitation of being filmed while engaging in sexual activity
 The act could go to lengths of banning language that was not obscene to protect the
kids if they felt it was necessary
 The Free Speech Coalition is an associate of the adult entertainment industry and
they claimed that the CPPA was depriving them of their right to free speech, so they
filed a suit

8.  After hearing the arguments of Chief Justice Kennedy and William Rehnquist, the
majority of the jury sided with Kennedy.
 Kennedy claimed that the act would “prohibit speech that was cleary not obscene according
to community standards
 Other cases involved: Miller V. California, Roth v. the United States, and Ferber v.
New York

9.  Outcome: The Supreme Court’s court ruling upheld the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’
decision.
 Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. He wrote that the CPPA would prohibit speech
that was clearly not obscene as defined by the case Miller v. California. He said that “virtual
pornography records no crime and creates no victims by its production.”
 Opinion: we don’t agree with the court ruling because every child deserves to be
protected from exploitation. Yes, virtual pornography does not depict actual children,
but it could influence the children’s decision to participate in sexual and exploitive acts
by seeing other people who resemble minors.

10. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (law case) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
http://law2.umkc.edu/favicon.ico