Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in First Amendment
Www.Obscenity.Com: An Analysis Of Obscenity And Indecency Regulation Of The Internet, Kelly M. Doherty
Www.Obscenity.Com: An Analysis Of Obscenity And Indecency Regulation Of The Internet, Kelly M. Doherty
Akron Law Review
This comment explores the constitutionality of federal regulations as applied to Internet content and alternatives to government regulation. Part II provides background on the Internet, First Amendment obscenity and indecency law as applied to communications media, and past and current legislation enacted to regulate Internet content. Part III analyzes the constitutionality of COPA, and discusses why other alternatives are more effective and preferable to government regulation. Part IV concludes that protecting children from harmful Internet content is the responsibility of parents, and therefore, Internet regulation should begin at home.
Toward A Constitutional Regulation Of Minors' Access To Harmful Internet Speech, Dawn C. Nunziato
Toward A Constitutional Regulation Of Minors' Access To Harmful Internet Speech, Dawn C. Nunziato
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In this Article, Prof. Nunziato scrutinizes Congress's recent efforts to regulate access to sexually-themed Internet speech. The first such effort, embodied in the Communications Decency Act, failed to take into account the Supreme Court's carefully-honed obscenity and obscenity-for-minors jurisprudence. The second, embodied in the Child Online Protection Act, attended carefully to Supreme Court precedent, but failed to account for the geographic variability in definitions of obscene speech. Finally, the recently-enacted Children's Internet Protection Act apparently remedies the constitutional deficiencies identified in these two prior legislative efforts, but runs the risk of being implemented in a manner that fails to protect …
The U.S. Supreme Court Addresses The Child Pornography Prevention Act And Child Online Protection Act In Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition And Ashcroft V. American Civil Liberties Union, Sue Ann Mota
Federal Communications Law Journal
Both the Child Pornography Prevention Act ("CPPA") and the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA") were intended by Congress to protect minors. The CPPA was intended to protect minors from the harmful effects of virtual child pornography. The COPA was intended to protect minors from pornography currently available commercially on the World Wide Web. However, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of both statutes: The Court struck down sections of the CPPA as overbroad and unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In Ashcroft v. ACLU, the Court upheld some sections of COPA as not unconstitutionally overbroad, but …