First Amendment Vs Free Speech

The recent decision resulting from Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 2002 reenergizes many issues related to the First Amendment and free speech. The focus of the aforementioned case is the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). There is a contention as to the courts and legislature's handling of virtual child pornography and whether it garners the same treatment– banned – as traditional child pornography. All sides of the issue consequently address the scope of the First Amendment, and Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court where he correctly limited the scope of intervention. Before delving into the hostile arena of virtual child pornography, a broader understanding of the context surrounding the First Amendment and
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment, United States Constitution). As evidenced by the many cases brought before the Supreme Court, the legislature and the Court find the wording of the amendment unclear and opened to interpretation. Such cases regard the extent to which free speech is indeed free, and not limited by the government. The government saw, and continues to see that limiting free speech under certain circumstances is acceptable. The exact abilities of the government to limit free speech continue to evolve in their scope and spectrum. The Supreme Court found certain cases where the limits placed on free speech were too broad in the legislation. Such instances needed would not pass the notion of a "strict scrutiny test" because the legislation was not "narrowly tailored" in its application. Put another way, the legislation must be limited as narrowly as possible in its application to limit only speech in certain outlined
One might contend that although the creation of the product lacked actual children, the acts depicted continue to feed the sickness of pedophilia. As J.S. Mill discussed the "bad tendency of words" in On Liberty, here virtual child pornography presents a similar "bad tendency". Mill speaks of words having the power to lead to action, intentionally or not. Following this idea to virtual child pornography, a pedophile or one seeking to distribute actual child pornography could use virtual images created without an actual child to entice a child to participate in sexual behavior. Though the possibility exists that such a situation could happen, the situation exists that many things could happen given a strong enough will. Kennedy writes, "There are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as cartoons, video games, and candy, that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused" (Kennedy 13). Kennedy is correct because suppressing speech due to the depictions in the speech – pornography – could potentially lead to a child performing such actions is not sufficient to legally limit speech. Though one may not agree with the speech, the guarantee of free speech exists and no harm to a child occurs with virtual child pornography thus making it