October Term 2003 · Docket 03-218
Does the Child Online Protection Act violate the First Amendment?
The ACLU argues the law bans protected adult speech. The government claims it protects children from online pornography.
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 violates the First Amendment.
She claimed the statute suppresses protected speech between adults.
She stated the government has less restrictive tools available.
General Olson argued the law addresses a compelling problem. He described online pornography as causing substantial damage to children.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 18-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 18-19
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. The ACLU contends the statute suppresses protected speech. The government asserts the law addresses a compelling harm to minors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 2, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 18-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 18-19
What each side wants
The ACLU wants the Court to strike down the statute.
The government wants the Court to uphold the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
What each side says
The ACLU argues the law suppresses protected adult speech.
The government argues the law protects children from harmful content.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 18-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 18-19
Why it matters
The outcome determines whether adults can access certain online content. It defines the government's power to regulate commercial speech. It balances child safety against free expression rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
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 3-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 18-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 18-19
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 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 20-16 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 20-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 10-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 10-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 14-17 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 14-17
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.