Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
535 U.S. 234 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law prohibiting sexually explicit images that only appear to depict minors, without requiring the images to be obscene under the Miller test or produced with real children as required by Ferber, is an unconstitutional and overbroad restriction on speech protected by the First Amendment.
Facts:
- In 1996, Congress enacted the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA).
- The CPPA expanded the definition of illegal child pornography to include any visual depiction that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," even if created without using real children (e.g., using young-looking adults or computer generation).
- The Act also banned material that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" that it depicts a minor in sexually explicit conduct.
- The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult-entertainment industry whose members produce sexually explicit works without using minors, feared prosecution under the CPPA.
- Other plaintiffs, including a publisher of a nudist lifestyle book, a painter of nudes, and a photographer of erotic images, also feared the CPPA would criminalize their constitutionally protected work.
- The plaintiffs alleged the CPPA's broad definitions would chill the production of art and entertainment, including works with serious literary and artistic value that depict teenage sexuality.
Procedural Posture:
- The Free Speech Coalition and other plaintiffs sued the U.S. Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to have the CPPA declared unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, upholding the statute.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the challenged provisions of the CPPA were substantially overbroad and therefore facially unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Government (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which criminalizes the creation, distribution, or possession of sexually explicit images that appear to depict minors but are not created using real children, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech because it is overbroad?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 violates the First Amendment because it is substantially overbroad. The statute prohibits speech that is protected by the First Amendment by banning images that are neither obscene under Miller v. California nor child pornography under New York v. Ferber. The Ferber precedent, which allows the banning of child pornography regardless of its value, is based on the compelling state interest in preventing the sexual abuse of children in the production process. Because virtual child pornography does not involve the use of real children, this rationale does not apply. The CPPA would criminalize a substantial amount of protected speech, including serious works of art and film that explore themes of teenage sexuality. The government's justifications—such as whetting the appetites of pedophiles or making prosecution of real child pornography more difficult—are insufficient to justify such a broad suppression of speech. The government cannot ban protected speech as a means to suppress unprotected speech.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
I agree that the challenged provisions of the Act are unconstitutional. The government's most compelling argument is that virtual images could be used by defendants to create reasonable doubt in prosecutions involving real child pornography. However, this interest is currently speculative, as the government has not shown that this defense has actually been successful. If future technological advancements make it impossible to distinguish between real and virtual images, the government may then have a compelling interest to enact a more narrowly tailored regulation.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
I agree in part and disagree in part. The provisions banning materials that 'convey the impression' of being child pornography and those prohibiting images of youthful-looking adults are unconstitutionally overbroad. However, the prohibition on purely computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real child pornography is constitutional. The government has a compelling interest in preventing defendants in actual child pornography cases from escaping liability by claiming the images are computer-generated. This portion of the statute should be upheld by giving it a narrowing construction, rather than striking down the entire 'appears to be' provision.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the Act does not violate the First Amendment. The Court should have applied a limiting construction to save the statute rather than striking it down on its face. The definition of 'sexually explicit conduct' could be narrowly read to apply only to 'hard core' pornography, which would exclude legitimate films like 'Traffic' or 'American Beauty.' Likewise, the 'conveys the impression' provision should be limited to the unprotected commercial practice of 'pandering.' Given Congress's compelling interest in enforcing laws against the sexual exploitation of real children, the Court should have deferred to its predictive judgments about the challenges posed by new technology.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutional distinction between speech that depicts illegal conduct and speech that is the product of illegal conduct. It holds that the rationale for banning child pornography under Ferber is exclusively tied to the harm of its production and does not extend to its content alone. By refusing to create a new category of unprotected speech for 'virtual' images, the Court affirmed that sexually explicit speech not involving real children is protected unless it meets the high bar for obscenity under Miller. The ruling significantly constrains Congress's ability to regulate virtual content and reinforces the principle that the government cannot ban protected ideas on the theory that they might encourage illegal acts.
