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

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

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.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

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 Reset View mode
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    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.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.