the circuit court upheld the preliminary injunction against COPA because it was impossible to apply "contemporary community standards" to the Internet. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. First Opinion of the Court In May 2002, the Supreme Court, in a 8-1 decision, affirmed the injunction against enforcement of COPA enacted by the circuit court, but ultimately ruled that the statute could not be invalidated because of the vague and overbroad definition of "contemporary community standards" in the Miller Test for obscenity. Furthermore, the circuit court should not have determined that defining that term was impossible. Thus, the majority voted to remand the case back to the circuit court to discuss that matter further. Dissenting opinions The only dissenting opinion came from Justice John Paul Stevens, who argued that the court should have declared COPA to be unconstitutional without remanding to the circuit court for further discussion. Second Opinion of the Court In October 2002, the Third Circuit heard the case a second time, after the remand from the Supreme Court. In March 2003, the Third Circuit again upheld the injunction, this time with a more precise discussion of "contemporary community standards". The government appealed that decision and the Supreme Court granted certiorari again, and in June 2004 the Court reaffirmed the original preliminary injunction. This time, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, in light of the circuit court's further discussion of "contemporary community standards" in the Miller Test as applied to the Internet, COPA was indeed an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. The court opined that using contemporary community standards to police the Internet would cause more harm than good, due to differing opinions across America about what was acceptable for children or consenting adults on the Internet. The court ultimately ruled that COPA was too restrictive in light of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the majority opinion, suggested that parents and educators could voluntarily adopt Internet filters and related software to reduce the visibility of harmful or unwanted material. In Kennedy's words, "Filters are less restrictive than COPA. They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source. ... [T]he Government failed to introduce specific evidence proving that existing filtering technologies are less effective than the restrictions in COPA.” The court also found that COPA did not pass the strict scrutiny test for governmental