Double Sided Sword Cuts Both Ways

Federal Court Rules Library Filtering Mandate Unconstitutional

In a major victory for free speech on-line, a federal court in Philadelphia on May 31 rejected as unconstitutional a law that would have required nearly every library in America to install and use Internet filtering software. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the Children's Internet Protection Act, passed by Congress in late 2000, was overbroad, and would violate the First Amendment rights of library patrons, both adults and minors. The court therefore ordered that the law not be enforced.

Plaintiffs in the case -- which included the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a wide assortment of libraries and library patrons -- emphasized the serious over- and under-blocking problems in Internet filtering software. They argued that use of such software by libraries would deny patrons access to a large amount of constitutionally protected online material. In its lengthy opinion, the court agreed.

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000 as part of a large appropriations package. After two previous attempts at regulating on-line publishers -- the Communications Decency Act (passed in 1996) and the Children's On-line Protection Act (passed in 1998) -- were rejected by the courts as unconstitutional, CIPA attempted to limit access to certain kinds of Internet content by users in public libraries and schools. The district court's ruling blocks enforcement of the provisions of CIPA involving public libraries, but does not address the provisions affecting schools, which still remain in effect.

the WIZARD, fkap supports the court's decision, but recognizes the importance of protecting children on the Internet. However, this heavy-handed content regulation bill was the wrong approach to this problem and completely failed to recognize the role parents play in their children's lives.

the WIZARD, fkap recognizes that while filters are imperfect tools, but if they are used voluntarily by families with parental supervision, they can help keep offensive material away from children. But, federally mandated use of those filters denies American's access to material they are entitled to view under the First Amendment. In addition, when required by government, filtering imposes a "one-size-fits-all" approach to managing on-line content that denies the diversity of American communities. The court correctly found CIPA's approach unconstitutional.

The decision of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania can be found at by clicking here