This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Attorney General John D. Ashcroft), according to Petitioner (Attorney General John D. Ashcroft), the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was presented as a response to pervasive commercial Internet pornography that causes substantial physical and psychological damage to children.
Petitioner argues that millions of children are exposed to pornographic material online, with about 11 million children visiting such sites each week and 70 percent of 15‑ to 17‑year‑olds doing so inadvertently.
Respondents contend that the statute’s protection for minors is narrower than that for adults and that it imposes a greater burden on speech.
Background and question before the Court
Justice O'Connor asked whether obscenity laws for adult viewers are poorly enforced.
Justice Kennedy asked about the meaning of a specific provision of COPA.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that the product is not pornographic.
According to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked what the proper congressional approach would be.
Petitioner highlighted that 11 million children visit porn sites each week, and 70 percent of 15‑ to 17‑year‑olds visited inadvertently.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Attorney General John D. Ashcroft)
According to Petitioner (Attorney General John D. Ashcroft), cOPA addresses a compelling problem of pervasive commercial Internet pornography that inflicts substantial physical and psychological damage on children.
Respondents (American Civil Liberties Union)
According to Respondents, the serious‑value‑for‑minors clause does not protect as much material as the serious‑value‑for‑adults clause in the obscenity statute.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:12 a.m.
Justice O'Connor asked whether obscenity laws for adult viewers are poorly enforced.
Justice Kennedy asked about the meaning of a specific provision of COPA.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that the product is not pornographic.
According to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked what the proper congressional approach would be.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The statute imposes a greater burden because it affects a larger quantity and diversity of speech and more users.
The Court has previously upheld statutes criminalizing the deliberate sale of harmful material to children.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d84b6b364cfda400fe3b-r1-6b8d232e818eb83f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.