Ashcroft Case and Final Information PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Ron Den Otter...

Description

Paper instructions due May 29th: ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

5 pages double spaced Introduction (half a page at most) ○ First sentence: tell the reader exactly what your paper is about. (this paper is about whether public figure should be subjected to negligence standard?) ■ Why is the question important? → relevance ■ The last sentence of introduction: write thesis (statement of argument) your answer to the question that is raised Next section of paper ○ Spell out the argument that you disagree with ○ At least 2 paragraphs (it’s up to me) ○ Spells out why AM is the constitutional standard for public figures ○ Be fair as possible Next section ○ 3 or more paragraphs ○ First opportunity to begin develop and defend my own view ○ Negligence would protect the reputation of public figures Next section ○ Come up with the objection to my argument that is most compelling ○ What would Justice brennan say about my position? ○ Main weakness of my argument ○ Why someone might think that negligence is not the standard of fault ○ 1 or 2 paragraphs Section before conclusion ○ Opportunity to get final word ○ Rebut the objection Conclusion (at most half a page) ○ Short and sweet ○ Reiterates what the important point of my paper is ○ Tie up any loose ends ○ Implications of my position ○ Don't bring up any brand new issues

Lecture 5/10

First question on final *************************** ● Should virtual child pornograghy be constitutionally permitted? ○ incorporate Ashcroft case ○ Begin by saying what is the government interest in banning virtual child pornograghy ■ The stronger the state interest, the more likely it will be banned ○ Strongest state interest ■ Sexually objectifying children ○ Mention all three state interests in Ashcroft ■ Acknowledge that court did not find any of these interests particularly strong ○ Does virtual child pornograghy have first ammendemnt value? Ashcroft case pp 148-150 ● Congress passed Child pornography prevention act of 1996 (federal law that was found to be unconstitutional) ○ Prohibited any visual depiction that is or appears to be a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct ● virtual child pornography ○ Computer animated images, drawings, ○ Any pornography convery or dispalys chidlren in sexualy explicit conduct ○ Also covers actors or actresses over the age of 18 portraying children ● What’s the state interest in banning Child pornography ○ virtual child pornography raises a differnt issue than child pornogrpahy because with real pornogrpahy, there is a strong state interest ○ A ban on real child pornogrpahy protects real children from harms that takes place if they are involved with real pornography ○ No real children are being harmed in virtual child pornogrpahy ● The Justices make three 3 points (in Ashcroft) ○ 1) Strangers with candy ■ Government argues that pedofiles can use child pornography to seduce children ■ The government has not demonstrated that this interest isn't strong enough; it is just speculation ^ ■ Kennedy writes majority opinion ○ 2) Whets the appetie of pedogiles ■ Virutal child pornography could encourage pedogiles to harm real children with what they see in virtual child pornography ■ Stimualtes the sexual appetie of pedofiles ■ The government finds this to insufficient, not convincing enough ^ ○ 3) Makes it harder to prosecute people for real child pornography

■

●

The Virutal child pornography can look so real that you may confuse with real child pornography ■ This government interest was not strong enough because it hasn't been successful; only one case has when an attorney tried to say that the real child pornography could be Virutal child pornography Speech that is not constitutionally protected ○ Incitement ○ Defamation with actual malice ○ Sexually explicit speech (obscenity) ○ Threats ○ Fighting words (technically) ○ Real child pornogrpahy...