On May 31, 2002 the three-judge federal judicial panel in Philadelphia overseeing the challenge to the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) struck down the law as "facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." CIPA was Congress’s third legislative attempt to protect children from Internet pornography. It would have withheld government subsidies from libraries unless they installed filtering software on computers that provide Internet access to the public. The panel’s decision and order agreed with plaintiffs, represented primarily by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and enjoined the U.S. government from withholding federal funds for failure to comply with the law by installing filtering software.
"The court found that these programs are inherently flawed and will inevitably prevent library patrons all over the country from accessing valuable speech online," said Ann Beeson, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program. The court called the software a "blunt instrument," adding that "the problems faced by manufacturers and vendors of filtering software are legion."
A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman said its attorneys were disappointed by the ruling and were reviewing it, and the government is widely expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case challenging the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) – which would ban Web site operators from publishing materials deemed harmful to minors unless their sites install electronic screening systems – the Supreme Court said general community standards could be used to determine what material constituted a threat to minors. However, the Supreme Court then sent the COPA legal challenge back to the federal panel in Philadelphia to address unresolved free speech problems.
Why This Matters:
The CIPA decision is not surprising given the tenor of the judges’ comments during the trial, but it is significant because CIPA was considered to be the anti-Internet porn bill most likely to survive a Constitutional challenge.This article originally appeared in ADLAW By Request, a publication of Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood LLP.
The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
