Courts to Hear CIPA, COPA Appeals

Two federal laws that block constitutionally protected speech on the Internet are under review, and the outcome will certainly affect school and public libraries.

The U.S. Supreme Court on November 12 said it would decide the fate of the 2000 Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires public libraries to install filtering software on their computers or forfeit federal library funding (see August 2002 , News, p. 24). The American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other groups have challenged the law.

A three-judge federal panel decided in May that CIPA violates the First Amendment because filtering programs also block valid Web sites. As a result of the ruling, public libraries are now exempt from the law, but it still applies to school libraries.

"The lower court decision provides a very firm foundation for our argument before the Supreme Court," says ALA Executive Director Keith Michael Fiels. "No mechanical device can replace guidance and education from parents, librarians, and community members working together."

Arguments on CIPA are expected to begin in late winter or early spring, and ACLU Attorney Anne Beeson says, "We're optimistic that the Supreme Court will agree with the lower court that filters are so flawed that they block access to constitutionally protected speech."

In early November, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia listened once again to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which bans commercial Web sites from allowing visitors under 18 to access materials deemed harmful to minors. In May, the Supreme Court returned the case to the appeals court, saying it had not sufficiently examined whether COPA violated free speech. ACLU claims that in protecting children the law also violates the rights of adults to see or buy what they want on the Internet. Passed in 1998, COPA has never been enforced due to injunctions and lower court decisions.

"[CIPA and COPA] are both laws that censor protected speech on the Internet, so it's important that they both remain enjoined," Beeson added.