Supreme Court to Decide CIPA's Fate

Does the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) violate First Amendment rights or is the government simply trying to protect youngsters from viewing online smut at public libraries? Three federal judges from the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania are expected to give their answer in early May, following two weeks of testimony from supporters and critics of the law. But it doesn't end there. Whatever the trial's outcome, both sides—the U.S. government and the American Library Association (ALA)—are expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CIPA, which was passed by Congress in December 2000, forces public libraries to install filtering software on their computers or forfeit federal library and E-rate funding. ALA, along with free-speech advocates and Web site operators, want CIPA overturned, arguing that it goes too far in trying to protect children from pornography. They say libraries can't implement the law without denying patrons their right to free speech and that filtering software, such as N2H2, Web Sense, Smart Filter, and Cyber Patrol, are flawed and limit adult access to constitutionally protected sites like Planned Parenthood and Sports Illustrated.

"Filters are technologically incapable of making the fine distinction between information that is 'good' and that which is 'bad,'" says ALA President John Berry. "They do not work today, and they will not work in the future." Instead of relying on filtering technology, Berry says, "We must teach our children, not only the difference between right and wrong, but also how to use information wisely."

The government maintains that children need to be protected from Internet porn, and the law calls for librarians to regulate online content as they would books and other library resources. CIPA's advocates say libraries that object to the law can simply refuse federal funding.

Among those testifying on behalf of ALA were Candace Morgan, former president of the Freedom to Read Foundation, the legal defense arm of ALA, who testified about her library's Internet-use policies, and Mary Kay Chelton, an associate professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Studies at Queens College/CUNY, who testified about the purpose and function of libraries. ALA and the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Multnomah County (OR) Public Library, filed lawsuits challenging the law in March 2001, and the cases were combined for this trial. Ginnie Cooper, Multnomah's library director, testified on behalf of her library.

This case marks the third time Congress has tried to control online porn. The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional, and justices are now deciding whether to do the same with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act.