Ashhahahahaha v. ACLU
Argued: 03/02/04
No. 03-218
Court below: 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003)
Full text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...rd/991324p.pdf
FIRST AMENDMENT (Constitutionality of Act Regulating "Harmful Content"
Available to Minors Online)
The issue in this case is whether an act regulating harmful content
available to minors over the World Wide Web is sufficiently narrowly
tailored to survive strict scrutiny.
Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) as a means to
regulate pornography available over the World Wide Web (the Web). The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought an action claiming that COPA
was unconstitutional and seeking a preliminary injunction preventing its
enforcement. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted an injunction against the enforcement of COPA,
reasoning that COPA was most likely to be found unconstitutional under the
First Amendment and could not survive strict scrutiny because it was not
narrowly tailored. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (Court of Appeals) affirmed, but on the grounds that COPA was
overbroad in defining what is considered harmful to minors. The United
States Supreme Court (the Court) vacated and remanded, mandating that
COPA's reliance on "community standards" to identify material "harmful to
minors" is overbroad and could not meet the exacting standards of the
First Amendment. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that the ACLU had
established likelihood that the COPA would not survive strict scrutiny and
that the Act was unconstitutionally overbroad. On appeal to the Court,
Ashhahahahaha argues that the government has a compelling interest in
protecting minors from pornographic depictions displayed on the Web and
that COPA is narrowly tailored because it only applies to material on the
Web. In addition, Ashhahahahaha argues that COPA is not unconstitutionally
overbroad and that the Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted COPA.
Argued: 03/02/04
No. 03-218
Court below: 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003)
Full text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...rd/991324p.pdf
FIRST AMENDMENT (Constitutionality of Act Regulating "Harmful Content"
Available to Minors Online)
The issue in this case is whether an act regulating harmful content
available to minors over the World Wide Web is sufficiently narrowly
tailored to survive strict scrutiny.
Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) as a means to
regulate pornography available over the World Wide Web (the Web). The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought an action claiming that COPA
was unconstitutional and seeking a preliminary injunction preventing its
enforcement. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted an injunction against the enforcement of COPA,
reasoning that COPA was most likely to be found unconstitutional under the
First Amendment and could not survive strict scrutiny because it was not
narrowly tailored. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (Court of Appeals) affirmed, but on the grounds that COPA was
overbroad in defining what is considered harmful to minors. The United
States Supreme Court (the Court) vacated and remanded, mandating that
COPA's reliance on "community standards" to identify material "harmful to
minors" is overbroad and could not meet the exacting standards of the
First Amendment. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that the ACLU had
established likelihood that the COPA would not survive strict scrutiny and
that the Act was unconstitutionally overbroad. On appeal to the Court,
Ashhahahahaha argues that the government has a compelling interest in
protecting minors from pornographic depictions displayed on the Web and
that COPA is narrowly tailored because it only applies to material on the
Web. In addition, Ashhahahahaha argues that COPA is not unconstitutionally
overbroad and that the Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted COPA.
Comment