Talk:Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
