Free Speech

Paragraph: 48 - I agree with JUSTICE BREYER's conclusion that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U. S. C. § 231, is constitutional. See post, at 689 (dissenting opinion). Both the Court and JUSTICE BREYER err, however, in subjecting COPA to strict scrutiny. Nothing in the First Amendment entitles the type of material covered by COPA to that exacting standard of review. N3* "We have recognized that commercial entities which engage in `the sordid business of pandering' by `deliberately emphasiz[ing] the sexually provocative aspects of [their nonobscene products], in order to catch the salaciously disposed,' engage in constitutionally unprotected behavior."

Notes:

• N3* / quote / endorsement / Q0363 /

Preferred Terms:

• (is not) pornography

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20040629.542.US.656.xml&keyword1= covered first amendment covered first amendment&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-03-28 15:58:04 Searcher: searcher Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef

Paragraph: 44 - N115* It may be, as JUSTICE BREYER contends, that the statute's coverage extends "only slightly" beyond the legally obscene, and therefore intrudes little into the realm of protected expression. Post, at 679 (dissenting opinion). But even with JUSTICE BREYER's guidance, I find it impossible to identify just how far past the already ill-defined territory of "obscenity" he thinks the statute extends. Attaching criminal sanctions to a mistaken judgment about the contours of the novel and nebulous category of "harmful to minors" speech clearly imposes a heavy burden on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.

Notes:

• N115* / / / / Striking down COPA- but what's the overall stance on obscenity online?

Preferred Terms:

• (reg) Obscenity Online

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20040629.542.US.656.xml&keyword1= expression protected expression&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-26 09:34:45 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 77 - The software "is simply incapable of discerning between constitutionally protected and unprotected speech." Id., at 65. It "inappropriately blocks valuable, protected speech, and does not effectively block the sites [it is] intended to block." Id., at 66 (citing reports documenting overblocking).

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

• (reg) Internet Censorship
• (reg) Overblocking

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20040629.542.US.656.xml&keyword1= speech protected speech&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk