Talk:Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrepancy regarding Justice Stevens

This page says that John Paul Stevens dissented against the majority opinion striking the law down, but his biography page (which links to this case) uses ACLU v. Ashcroft as an example of how he is a libertarian on First Amendment issues.Porce 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority opinion didn't strike the law down. On the contrary, Thomas wrote: "This case presents the narrow question whether the Child Online Protection Act's (COPA or Act) use of 'community standards' to identify 'material that is harmful to minors' violates the First Amendment. We hold that this aspect of COPA does not render the statute facially unconstitutional (emphasis added). And says the syllabus, "The Court, however, expresses no view as to whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth for reasons other than its use of community standards, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or whether the statute survives strict scrutiny." Stevens was actually the only justice in this case who wanted to affirm the Third Circuit's affirmance of the district court's preliminary injunction of COPA on the Third Circuit's ground that "COPA's reliance on community standards to identify 'material that is harmful to minors' does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment" (maj. op.).

This article, then, is highly misleading if not in fact wrong. --zenohockey 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made a start at fixing it. It needs expansion though. Perhaps your confusion, Porce, stems from the fact that in 2004, Ashcroft v. ACLU (whose WP article currently just redirects to COPA) did strike the law down, pending trial. --zenohockey 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is the wrong ACLU v Ashcroft

ACLU v Ashcroft 2002 was a facial challenge where COPA was upheld. It wasn't until ACLU v Ashcroft 2004 that the law was struck down. See the COPA article. The summary for this article is right but the "Decision" section in the main body says that the court found it unconst, which it did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.105.43 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Holding of the Case

The Supreme Court did not hold that COPA was unconstitutional. Instead, the court stated that the use of the local community standard was not enough by itself to render COPA too broad (and thus violating the First Amendment). Directly from section IV of the opinion (which a majority of the justices agreed with):

"The scope of our decision today is quite limited. We hold only that COPA's reliance on community standards to identify "material that is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment. We do not express any view as to whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth for other reasons, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague..." ^[1]

Furthermore, the page is misleading in only saying that the Supreme Court affirmed the injunction. The Government continued to be enjoined because they did not ask the Supreme Court to vacate the preliminary injunction. Again from the opinion:

"Petitioner does not ask us to vacate the preliminary injunction entered by the District Court, and in any event, we could not do so without addressing matters yet to be considered by the Court of Appeals. As a result, the Government remains enjoined from enforcing COPA absent further action by the Court of Appeals or the District Court." ^[2]

In the end, the Supreme Court vacated the judgement of the Third Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.142.239 (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 585, 122 S. Ct. 1700, 1713. (For the full opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/564/case.html)
^ Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 586, 122 S. Ct. 1700, 1713-1714. (For the full opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/564/case.html)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 585, 122 S. Ct. 1700, 1713. (For the full opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/564/case.html)

[2] Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 586, 122 S. Ct. 1700, 1713-1714. (For the full opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/564/case.html)

[1]

[2]