A New First Amendment Model for Evaluating Content-Based Regulation of Internet Pornography: Revising the Strict Scrutiny Model to Better Reflect the Realities of the Modern Media Age

By Garry, Patrick M. | Brigham Young University Law Review, November 1, 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

A New First Amendment Model for Evaluating Content-Based Regulation of Internet Pornography: Revising the Strict Scrutiny Model to Better Reflect the Realities of the Modern Media Age


Garry, Patrick M., Brigham Young University Law Review


In the modern media age, the number of media venues, along with the types of information and programming those venues carry, is exploding. Nowhere is that explosion more evident than with the Internet. On the positive side, the Internet offers a wealth of information and communications opportunities. But, on the negative side, it brings a boundless store of harmful material within easy access of children. In recognition of the destructive effects of such material-especially obscenity and pornography-Congress on several occasions has tried to curb the accessibility of this material to children. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down each attempt using a strict scrutiny approach.1

For example, in Ashcroft v. ACLU,2 the Court struck down Congress's most recent attempt to limit children's exposure to pornographic material through the Internet-the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).3 The Act imposed criminal penalties for knowingly posting, for "commercial purposes," of Internet content that is "harmful to minors" but provided an affirmative defense to commercial vendors who restricted access to prohibited materials by "requiring use of a credit card" or "any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology."4 Even though Congress had written COPA less restrictively than its prior attempts to regulate child access to pornography, the Ashcroft Court still found COPA unconstitutional on the grounds that it "was likely to burden some speech that is protected for adults" and that there were "plausible, less restrictive alternatives."5

The Court's majority opinion in Ashcroft is an excellent example of current First Amendment doctrine, which requires that any content-based regulation of speech-regardless of the actual burdens it imposes-be subjected to strict scrutiny by the courts. Under this approach, regulations like COPA almost never survive. As Gerald Günther once put it, strict scrutiny is "'strict' in theory and fatal in fact."6

The CP80 proposal, as oudined in Professor Preston's article, is creative and promising.7 But if enacted, it would most likely be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. Even though Professor Preston makes a strong case for why the proposal should survive strict scrutiny,8 it is likely that the Court will strike down the CP80 scheme under its traditional application of the strict scrutiny test. However, such a prospect should not automatically condemn CP80 to the storage room of unimplemented creative ideas; instead, the novelty of CP80 should prompt a rethinking of existing First Amendment doctrines, particularly the strict scrutiny approach. In fact, CP80 presents an opportunity to refocus First Amendment jurisprudence in a way that better recognizes the realities of the modern media world.

Part I of this Article outiines the case against the Court's current use of strict scrutiny. This approach hinges on a single factor: whether or not a regulation of speech hinges on a content distinction. Once such a distinction is found, the law is almost always struck down, regardless of the speech burdens actually imposed by the law, whether the subject speech is in plentiful supply in other media venues, or whether the laws would result in a banishment of certain ideas from the public discourse. This myopic focus on content discrimination is outmoded in today's multimedia world and prohibits regulations of speech even when the burdens imposed by the law are slight and the speech remains available and accessible in the broader marketplace of ideas.

Part II of the Article proposes a new judicial model for evaluating content-based laws regulating media programming that is not political speech.9 This new model examines the actual burdens placed on die subject speech. It also considers perhaps the most vulnerable freedom in the current media environment-the freedom of the unwilling recipient to avoid unwanted and offensive media speech. Furthermore, the new model-a variation of the intermediate scrutiny approach now used for so-called contentneutral regulations of speech-takes into account and incorporates the realities of the modern media world.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

A New First Amendment Model for Evaluating Content-Based Regulation of Internet Pornography: Revising the Strict Scrutiny Model to Better Reflect the Realities of the Modern Media Age
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?