ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (2004)

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether the court of appeals properly barred enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act on First Amendment grounds because the statute relies on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors.

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

To protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet, Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which, among other things, imposed a $50,000 fine and 6 months in prison for posting content for “commercial purposes” that is “harmful to minors” — but provides an affirmative defense sites that restrict access to prohibited materials by “requiring use of a credit card” or “any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology."

COPA was enacted in response to Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, in which the Supreme Court held that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available. Respondents filed suit for a preliminary injunction against COPA’s enforcement. After considering testimony presented by both respondents and the government, the District Court granted the preliminary injunction, concluding that respondents were likely to prevail on their argument that there were less restrictive alternatives to COPA, particularly blocking or filtering technology. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on different grounds, but the Supreme Court reversed, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union. On remand, the Third Circuit again affirmed, concluding that COPA was not the least restrictive means available for the government to serve the interest of preventing minors from using the Internet to gain access to harmful materials.