Citation

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in U.S. v. Stevens Parallels the Court’s 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Decision

Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Similar Titles



Abstract:

In 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Stevens that 18 USC § 48, a law that prohibited the creation, sales, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty, was unconstitutional. The federal law was overbroad and content-oriented thus failing the strict scrutiny test. In its decision, the Court paralleled the legal reasoning it used in 2002 in Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition when it struck down portions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. This paper analyzes Stevens within the context of the Ashcroft decision in both the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority and dissenting Justices in both decisions repeatedly referred to the Court’s previous Miller v. California and New York v. Ferber opinions to support their perspectives. The Stevens and Ashcroft cases showed that the Court is unlikely to create a new category of unprotected speech from a federal law unless that law meets the strict scrutiny test for speech.

Most Common Document Word Stems:

id (99), court (87), law (74), speech (63), anim (62), video (57), depict (47), crush (47), child (44), steven (36), decis (36), pornographi (33), v (32), u.s (30), first (29), protect (28), cruelti (25), 18 (24), said (24), govern (24), amend (22),
Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

Association:
Name: BEA
URL:
http://www.beaweb.org


Citation:
URL: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p482425_index.html
Direct Link:
HTML Code:

MLA Citation:

Azriel, Joshua. "The Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in U.S. v. Stevens Parallels the Court’s 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Decision" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the BEA, Las Vegas Hilton, Las Vegas, NV, Apr 09, 2011 <Not Available>. 2014-11-26 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p482425_index.html>

APA Citation:

Azriel, J. , 2011-04-09 "The Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in U.S. v. Stevens Parallels the Court’s 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Decision" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the BEA, Las Vegas Hilton, Las Vegas, NV Online <PDF>. 2014-11-26 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p482425_index.html

Publication Type: Open Paper
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Stevens that 18 USC § 48, a law that prohibited the creation, sales, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty, was unconstitutional. The federal law was overbroad and content-oriented thus failing the strict scrutiny test. In its decision, the Court paralleled the legal reasoning it used in 2002 in Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition when it struck down portions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. This paper analyzes Stevens within the context of the Ashcroft decision in both the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority and dissenting Justices in both decisions repeatedly referred to the Court’s previous Miller v. California and New York v. Ferber opinions to support their perspectives. The Stevens and Ashcroft cases showed that the Court is unlikely to create a new category of unprotected speech from a federal law unless that law meets the strict scrutiny test for speech.


Similar Titles:
Regulation of Computer-generated virtual Child Pornography under American and French Jurisprudence: One Country’s Protected “Speech” is another’s Harmful Smut.

Crowdslapping the Government: First Amendment Protections for the Crowd in Government Crowdsourcing Ventures

Tax Ban on House of Worship Partisan Electoral Speech Inhibits Democratic Participation and Discriminates against Some Religions and Minorities: Hallowed First Amendment Protections Be Damned

The ACPA and the First Amendment: Protecting Commercial Speech in Cyberspace


 
All Academic, Inc. is your premier source for research and conference management. Visit our website, www.allacademic.com, to see how we can help you today.