October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1293
Does the Child Online Protection Act violate free speech rights?
The ACLU argues the law criminalizes protected speech. The government claims it protects children from harm.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Beeson argued the law creates compelled speech concerns. She noted many web operators are single individuals.
General Olson argued the government has a responsibility to protect children. He cited the Ginsberg case for this principle.
General Olson stated all three branches of government support this view. He claimed pornography is widely available to children online.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 1-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 1-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the Child Online Protection Act. The ACLU says the law bans protected speech. The government says the law serves a compelling interest in child safety.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 1-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 1-1
What each side wants
The ACLU wants the Court to strike down the law. They argue it bans protected speech.
The government wants the Court to uphold the law. They argue it protects children from harm.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
What each side says
The ACLU claims the law criminalizes protected speech. They argue it forces compelled speech on web operators.
The government claims pornography causes substantial damage to children. They argue protecting children is a compelling national interest.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted. He ended the oral argument session.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 1-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 1-1
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of government power over internet speech. It balances child safety against adult free expression. The ruling sets a precedent for online content regulation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 1-1 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 47-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 47-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-41
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.