Children's Internet Protection Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Children's Internet Protection Act, also known as CIPA, is one of a number of bills that the United States Congress has proposed in an attempt to limit children's exposure to pornography and other controversial material online. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the bill that would become CIPA to the United States Senate in 1999. After various Representatives repeatedly introduced it to the United States House of Representatives, a final version cleared both houses and passed as part of an omnibus spending bill on December 15, 2000. President William Jefferson Clinton signed it into law on December 21, 2000, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2003 despite the American Library Association's attempt to have it declared unconstitutional.

1 Earlier attempts to restrict indecency and CIPA
2 What CIPA requires
3 Suit challenging CIPA's constitutionality
4 CIPA found constitutional
5 Post-CIPA legislation
6 External links
7 See also

[edit] Earlier attempts to restrict indecency and CIPA

Both of Congress's earlier attempts at censoring Internet access, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, had met with successful Supreme Court challenges on First Amendment grounds. CIPA represented a change in strategy. If Congress could not halt the distribution of obscene material or force pornographic distributors to accurately screen their customers by age, they could at least close off some of the access points, especially those where children were the primary Internet users. While the federal government had no means of directly controlling these state and local government institutions, they did heavily subsidize school and library telecommunications bills and computer purchases through Universal Service Fund discounts, also called E-rate discounts, and the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA).

[edit] What CIPA requires

CIPA required schools and libraries to operate "a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors," and that such a technology protection measure be employed "during any use of such computers by minors." For adult Internet users, the law demanded the same standards with the exception of the "harmful to minors" provision. Libraries commonly interpreted this to require the installation of Internet filtering software.

CIPA emphasized that the "determination regarding what matter is inappropriate for minors shall be made" locally, never by the federal government, leaving room for community standards. In addition, it specified that it did not prevent libraries from filtering "any content other than the content covered" by CIPA, should they wish to be more restrictive than required. Finally, it allowed libraries to "disable the technology protection measure concerned . . . to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose." If a library received E-rate funds, this provision applied only to adults, but if a library received only LSTA grant funds, this provision applied to all patrons.

[edit] Suit challenging CIPA's constitutionality

On January 17, 2001, the ALA voted to challenge the law as unconstitutional. It charged first that, because CIPA's enforcement mechanism involved removing federal funds intended to assist disadvantaged facilities, "CIPA runs counter to these federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans." Second, it argued, as the government had several years earlier in its attempts to defend the CDA and COPA, that "no filtering software successfully differentiates constitutionally protected speech from illegal speech on the Internet."

Working with the American Civil Liberties Union, the ALA successfully challenged the law in the Third Circuit Court. In a 200 page decision, the judges wrote that "in view of the severe limitations of filtering technology and the existence of these less restrictive alternatives [including making filtering software optional or supervising users directly], we conclude that it is not possible for a public library to comply with CIPA without blocking a very substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment."

[edit] CIPA found constitutional

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, however, the law was upheld as constitutional. The Supreme Court decision, while it supported the law, did significantly reinterpret one portion. The Justices made it clear that their decision held only "if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request." As noted above, the text of the law stated first that the librarian could but was not required to comply with such a request, and second that such a request might only be made "for bona fide research or other lawful purpose," implying that the adult would be expected to provide justification with his request. With the new interpretation, CIPA required justification only from children who wished unfiltered access and made it mandatory for libraries to be willing to unblock content for adult users.

Libraries can still refuse to filter their Internet access if they are willing to forego federal E-Rate funds. Several library systems, including the Westchester Library System, in New York, have chosen to give up federal funding in order to keep their computers unfiltered.