US Attorney General, John Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition Act

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced more than 100 arrests on Aug. 8 related to a Texas-based Internet child pornography ring. Postal inspectors say the two-year investigation that preceded the arrests may yield 30,000 more cases involving those who received child pornography. Part of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996, is constitutionally suspect in the eyes of some First Amendment lawyers, and faces a significant test before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. The courts say the federal law is a shift in the way Congress views the First Amendment and child pornography. In addition to addressing pornography involving real children, it bars the production, possession or distribution of fake child porn. It outlaws crude and obscene material with adults playing minors, adults who could pass as underage and virtual computer-generated images that seem to portray minors.

In 1999, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court ruling that held the "virtual pornography" section of the law to be constitutional. Free Speech Coalition v. Reno. The government has since appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawyer for the Fr

ee Speech Coalition says the CPPA, and state laws like that used in Ohio in July to convict a man for fictional depiction of child sex abuse in his diary, endanger free speech.

First Amendment experts say that if the act is kept, other laws could be expanded to punish fake portrayals of other illegal behavior, under the reasoning that such portrayals result in crime. The law defines child pornography as a visual depiction that "appears to be a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." This statement was found to be vague in its 2-1 ruling in Free Speech Coalition. The law provides for up to 15 years in prison for the possession of more than three images of child pornography, and 30 years for defendants with previous child-porn or sex-abuse convictions.

I personally believe that any and all pornography should be outlawed on the Internet, mainly because anyone could have access to it. Though it may be considered “soft porn”, it is not suitable for children or young adults. Specifically referring to the case of virtual child pornography, I believe that and image of a human or what seems to be a human or living thing should be banned from the Internet, because it is purely foul.

Mann’s “Immediate Family,” transforms the family album into public art. However, Mann’s child photographs, in contrast, retain the family in an intimate realm viewed from the per

Some topics in this essay:
Sally Mann’s, Speech Coalition, Supreme Court, Ohio July, Immediate Family, Texas-based Internet, Court Appeals, Crossed Sticks, John Ashcroft, Act CPPA, child pornography, free speech, free speech coalition, speech coalition, mother child, family album, relation mother child, expression child, relation mother, supreme court, sally mann, attorney john, attorney john ashcroft,