What was the key reason the appellate court found CPPA invalid on its face?

• A. It bans materials that are not obscene under Miller.
• B. It bans only obscene materials.
• C. It bans materials unrelated to sexual conduct.
• D. It bans content that is educational.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is overbreadth under the First Amendment, using the Miller obscenity standard. If a law bans materials that Miller would deem not obscene, it punishes speech that is protected. That sweeping reach means the statute cannot be upheld on its face because it suppresses more speech than the Constitution allows. In other words, by criminalizing non-obscene content, the CPPA goes beyond targeting true obscenity and traps protected expression as well, making it invalid on its face. The other descriptions don’t capture that overbreadth: banning only obscene materials would be within constitutional bounds if narrowly tailored, while bans on material unrelated to sexual conduct or on educational content don’t pinpoint the same First Amendment flaw.