Pages 354-371 PDF

Preview

Summary

notes for test...

Description

PAGES 354- 371: PAGE 354: American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut (1986)  Only case seen by Supreme Court that framed obscenity as an issue of sexual equality.  Indianapolis ordinance that (in accord with model statute offered by feminist scholars) defined pornography as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women.”  US COA for seventh circuit ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, SCOTUS agreed. o COA reasoning -> the ordinance only demands attention of particular depictions not work as a whole.  SCOTUS did not issue an opinion on the merits in the dispute. o Leads one to believe that obscenity is still seen as a First Amendment issue  Canadian courts say that obscenity is equivalent to hate propaganda. CRUELTY AND VIOLENCE  Obscenity and libel have always been considered outside of the guarantees protected by the first amendment, but attempts have been made to expand the list of unprotected genres of expression. United States v. Stevens (2010)  Sale of videos depicting cruelty to animals  Involved a 1999 federal law that criminalized the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. o Only addressed portrayals of harmful acts not underlying conduct o Any visual or audio content that “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if the content violates the law of wherever it is created, sold, or possessed.  There was a clause that exempted depictions with serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value. 355

 Congress primarily focused on “crush videos” o Feature the torture and killing of helpless animals  When Clinton signed the law he told the justice department to focus on “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” o Almost immediately dried up the crush video industry  Most prosecutions continued against compiling or selling videos depicting dog fights.  Stevens was among those indicted. -> 37 months in prison.  Argued the law violated his free speech rights.  Government responded with a proposed balancing test to determine whether something is covered under free speech. o “Balance between value of the speech against its societal costs”  Dog fighting lacked expressive value so it was regulated as unprotected speech.  Animal cruelty is unprotected expression.  8-1 decision (Alito dissenting) court rejected governments claims.  Chief Roberts wrote for the majority: o Didn’t like the balance test. o “not been on a basis of a simple cost benefit analysis.” o Left a possibility of a law limited to extreme animal cruelty or crush videos. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Associations (2011)  Sale of violent video games to children  Broader decision than Stevens  Court rejected California’s request to remove the sale of violent video games to minors from first amendment protection o The majority informed that all laws prohibiting sale of such video games would be subject to strict scrutiny  Justice Alito wrote concurring opinion  In Stevens and Brown the government asked the court to treat these forms of ‘expression’ as it does obscenity and place them beyond full first amendment protection.  IN BOTH CASES THE JUSTICES DECLINED TO DO SO. 356-361

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) I. JUDICIAL HISTORY. Case went to the Federal District Court where the case was struck down the law. US COA for ninth circuit affirmed. SCOTUS affirmed. II. FACTS A bill was passed in 2005 by California that prohibited the direct sale or rental of violent video games to minors and required the games to be labeled. If violated it was an $1000 fine. Entertainment Merchants Association filed suit against the state in the name of the governor claiming that the bill (1179) violated freedom of speech. III. ISSUES Violent material should be treated the same way as sexually explicit material. It’s the states obligation to give parents the power in raising their child. This content harms minors. The media is just as expressive as past media. IV. LAW AND RULES United States v. Stevens (2010), United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group Inc. (2000), Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002), Roth v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Miller v. California (1973) V. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS SCOTUS said that no matter what there are constitutional limits on government and they apply no matter the circumstance. VI. CONCLUSION The law was struck down. VII. SIGNIFICANCE Set precedent for how obscenity in games would be dealt with. Scalia delivered the opinion. Alito and Chief justice concurred. Thomas dissented. Breyer Dissented

363    

The First Amendment and the Internet Electronic chatrooms and the internet have led to more cases of abduction, sex crimes, and even murder. The ability to collect and catalog huge amounts of data allows for invasions of privacy. Internets open access means no supervising authority. The question that is mainly posed is how much can be restricted without limited free speech.

364/5  Cyberporn is a $100 billion industry, and an estimated 20% of the sites are child pornography.  Total federal prosecutions in child pornography cases have increased by more than 450 percent over the last decade. o In response, in 1990 Congress enacted laws of two flavors:  Shielding children from sexually explicit material and prohibiting child pornography on the internet.  With passing of each of this came immediate legal challenge.  Newly formed organizations that desire to keep a free internet partnered with older civil liberties groups like the ACLU.  Org. not necessarily for child pornography, more anti burdensome federal laws Shielding Children from Access to Sexually Explicit Material  Since no one industry governs the internet, congress stepped in with two laws o Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA)  Attempts to regulate the transmission of certain kinds of material or messages to people under the age of 18 o Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA or CDA II)  Involves the us of filtering devices to block minors from viewing certain material Regulating Access to Internet Sites

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

I. JUDICIAL HISTORY. A three judge district court held that the law was unconstitutional, it was appeal to SCOTUS and certiorari to the USSC was granted. II. FACTS After the CDA was passed to control children’s access to sexually explicit material that’s transmitted electronically. A coalition of about 50 organizations led by the ACLU filed suit saying the law violated the first amendment. III. ISSUES Internet cannot educate if people are afraid to let their children use it. Display provision is constitutional under FCC v. Pacifica (1978). The CDA criminalizes such a broad spectrum some of which may be valuable. The terms used in the CDA are unconstitutionally vague. IV. LAW AND RULES FCC v. Pacifica (1978), Miller v. California (1973), V. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS “The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.” VI. CONCLUSION Judgment of district court was affirmed. VII. SIGNIFICANCE (FOR PSC 307, 308 and PAD 612/412 ONLY) Shows how court views internet. Struck down part of the CDA. Stevens deliver opinion of court. O’Connor concurred in part and dissented in part.

369

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union I (2002)  Thomas wrote for majority saying: the use of COPA’s “community standards” to identify material harmful to children did not render the statute facially invalid in part because COPA applied to a narrower class of material than the CDA did.  COA held that COPA violated the first amendment. o Not the “least restrictive” alternative available to accomplish the goal of shielding children from harmful material Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union II (2004)  Least restrictive test  Justice Kennedy delivered opinion.  Proposed something less restrictive than COPA o Something to restrict on the receiving end, but not to restrict the universal source o FILTERING SOFTWARE 370 Filtering Software United States v. American Library Association (2003):  Issue: constitutionality of yet another congressional attempt to prevent children from visiting certain internet sites: CHILDREN’S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT of 2000 withholds federal financial aid to libraries that do not use any filtering software to block “visual depictions” that are harmful to minors.  6 justices voted to uphold the law  Chief Rehnquist failed to obtain majority for his view o Restricting adult library internet users is no more a violation of the first amendment than placing limits on their ability to borrow books that librarians did not use their discretion to purchase  Kennedy and Breyer (2 of the 6) agreed the law was constitutional on it’s face, but were concerned with how it would work in practice. Prohibiting Child Pornography

370/1 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)  Challenged the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA)  Went beyond pornography with actual minors and addressed computer generated images that appeared as minors.  Didn’t want computer images to encourage people to use them to encourage children or use them for themselves.  This shifts from means of productions to the content of the images.  Computer generated images could make it harder to prosecute people who use actual minors.  Free Speech Coalition challenged the US district court saying they never used minors in it’s sexually explicit works. o They did admit that some of the materials could fall into the CPPA’s definition of child pornography.  Argued that the the terms “appear to be” and “conveys the impression” were overbroad and very vague.  District court disagreed and ruled in favor of the government. o US COA for ninth circuit reversed this decision  Federal government can’t prohibit speech based on danger that it could encourage viewers to commit illegal acts  This contradicted all other federal courts  SCOTUS agreed with ninth circuit however.  Justice Kennedy wrote for a 6 person majority...