By Charles Lane
Washington Post
June 24, 2003
SLIS Summary
This week, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that seeks to prevent Internet users at public libraries from gaining access to pornography, a decision that could affect millions of Americans who access the Web at public libraries.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires libraries receiving federal aid for Internet technology to use anti-pornography filtering software, does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.The law had been opposed by the American Library Association and a group of Internet users and Web sites. They argued that filtering software is so imprecise that it also blocks a large amount of constitutionally protected material.
The decision was something of a departure for a Supreme Court that has generally taken an expansive view of the First Amendment. In two previous reviews of recent congressional attempts to regulate sexually explicit material in cyberspace, the court struck down one law and issued a mixed ruling on a second.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, as did Justice David H. Souter, who was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"There is no good reasonto treat blocking of adult enquiry as anything different from the censorship it presumptively is," Souter wrote.
Maurice J. Freedman, president of the American Library Association, said the court had imposed an "unseemly burden" by asking librarians to handle requests by library users who want the filtering software turned off.
But congressional sponsors hailed the court's decision. "Parents can now feel secure that when they entrust their children to a public school or library there is some level of safety for their children when they go online," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Opponents filed their suit shortly after the Internet law took effect in December 2000. In May 2002, a panel of three federal judges sitting in Philadelphia ruled unanimously that the law was unconstitutional.
However, a recent study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in partnership with researchers at the University of Michigan, found that, when set at the least restrictive level, filters correctly block 87 percent of pornography while incorrectly blocking an average of only 1.4 percent of sites with legitimate health information.
Under special provisions in the law calling for expedited constitutional review, the Bush administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing that the software was the best available means of preventing taxpayer money from subsidizing the dissemination of material that is obscene or inappropriate for children.
The software's automatic screening of Web material, the administration argued, is no different from the decisions libraries make each day about which books are appropriate to keep on their shelves.
The law represents the third time since 1996 that Congress, responding to parents' concerns about the powerful new medium's potential influence on children, has attempted to limit what can be seen, heard and read on the Web.
Congress passed a revised version of the law in 1998, called the Child Online Protection Act. In 2002, the court partially upheld the new law but asked lower courts to review key provisions; meanwhile, enforcement of the act remains blocked.
The case is U.S. v. American Library Association Inc., et al., No. 02-361.
Read the full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24548-2003Jun23.html
See related articles:
A Ruling in Need of Filtering
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25720-2003Jun24.html?nav=hptoc_tn
ALA Denounces Supreme Court Ruling on Children's Internet Protection Act
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=36206
Supreme Court Upholds CIPA
http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA306553&display=breakingNews
Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/news/story.php?story_id=431
Posted June 26, 2003