Talk:Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

FYI — Redirect

I've taken the liberty of moving (in my clunky, non-admin way) "Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition" to "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, per usual court citation style. A previous editor moved the page from a previously miscapitalized title, and in the process inadvertantly (or at least unknowingly) changed the abbreviation. I'll now go fix all the double-redirects. Hope this didn't ruin any edit histories or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zenohockey (talk • contribs) .

"Six and a half to two and a half." The official lineup of the Justices given in the Court's official syllabus reads in part, "O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia, J., joined as to Part II." Based on this statement, I understand the attempt to clarify the lineup of the votes by splitting O'Connor's vote in this way. But I don't think this is a helpful way to think of the lineup of the votes, because it presupposes that there can't be a third way, as sometimes there is in Supreme Court decisions. Describing it as 6-2-1 might be more helpful, since O'Connor's reasoning was particularly sui generis. I think I'll make this change. ---Axios023 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Collaboration Article

Since this is WP:SCOTUS's current PCA, here's our list of sections to do. Please cross off as completed or put your name by a section if work is in progress. Thanks and cheers!Chaser T 10:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Introduction
• Prior history
• The case
• Effects
• Subsequent history
• Sources and further reading
• External links
• Categories
• Interlanguage links (if possible)

Finished, with no small thanks to Axios023.--Chaser - T 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224215411/http://www.usdoj.gov:80/osg/briefs/2000/3mer/2mer/2000-0795.mer.aa.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/3mer/2mer/2000-0795.mer.aa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

References

I would request that all please note to include proper legal citations in their references, as most of us would like to be able to read the court opinions for ourselves. This is in order to make certain platforms, such as LexusNexis and FastCase compatible with the Article as presented here. I will be fixing the references in this regard where possible, as this is a huge benefit to law students. Thank you. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing should be limited and revised.

Edits to the summary were made that is entirely unsources, specifically targeting a heated topic surrounding drawn materials. The edit made also contradicts the actual opinion from the courts. 71.29.76.181 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Factual issue in the introduction.

Simulated child pornography is not "protected free speech", it is not "categorically unprotected" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NATOisawesome (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is correct the case solely struck down the law in question as overbroad insomuch as to not pass the Miller test for obscenity. A law was passed in 2003 that bans cartoon child pornography (The Protect Act 1466A) 160.19.2.249 (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)