The U.S. Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2003) centered on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The act, passed in 1998, made it a crime for any person to knowingly communicate material that is harmful to minors over the internet for commercial purposes. The ACLU challenged this law as an infringement on First Amendment rights and won at both district court level and Third Circuit Court of Appeals level which held that COPA likely violated the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and there were less restrictive alternatives available such as filtering software or other technology-based tools used by parents or guardians. However, when appealed to the Supreme Court, they disagreed with lower courts' decisions stating that they relied too heavily on potential technological solutions without considering whether these would be effective in achieving Congress's goal of preventing minors from accessing harmful materials online. Therefore, while acknowledging concerns about free speech implications under COPA, SCOTUS remanded back down for trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, Justice Stevens argued that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. He contended that COPA's use of "community standards" to determine what content is harmful to minors was overly broad and could potentially criminalize a wide range of constitutionally protected speech. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the chilling effect this law might have on adult access to legal material online due to fear of prosecution under its vague provisions. He also pointed out that less restrictive alternatives were available, such as filtering software or requiring age verification by websites hosting explicit content.