Freedom of speech advocates have begun filing briefs in the Supreme Court
seeking to uphold a Philadelphia federal appeals court ruling that the
Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was in violation of the First
Amendment.
Oral arguments in the U.S. Justice Department appeal to have the decision
overturned is scheduled to begin in the Supreme Court on March 5 where a
final decision will be made on the controversial law, which seeks to
regulate inappropriate content and install content filtering technology in
public libraries nationwide.
Last May, the so-called Internet porn law was tossed
out, with the appeals court agreeing that the use of filtering technology
blocked portions of protected speech “whose suppression serves no legitimate
government interest.”
“Any public library that adheres to CIPA’s conditions will necessarily
restrict patrons access to a substantial amount of protected speech in
violation of the First Amendment,” according to the ruling.
The law, enacted in December 2000 in part to protect minors from access
to Internet pornography, requires schools and libraries to use the filtering
software to shield minors from adult material but, because it called for
adults to get permission to access certain information, it raised the ire of
the civil liberties and library groups. The law also blocked federal funding
to libraries that did not install the software.
That ruling was a huge victory for the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and the American Library Association (ALA), who filed twin lawsuits
last March to have the law tossed out on First Amendment and due process
grounds.
Now, as the case heads to the Supreme Court, the ACLU and ALA have filed briefs supporting
the court decision and asking the Supreme Court judges to uphold the ruling.
“The statute requires libraries to install blocking programs that
inevitably censor a substantial amount of protected speech for adults and
minors. Indeed no blocking program offers content categories that are
limited — or even tied in any way — to CIPA’s legal definitions of
obscenity, child pornography, or material that is ‘harmful to minors’,” the
ACLU/ALA brief argued.
The groups dismissed the CIPA-mandated blocking programs as “ineffective”
and “overly broad” and noted that libraries around the country have devised
a number of less restrictive ways to assist patrons who wish to avoid
content they find offensive. “Under this Court’s well-established First
Amendment rules, CIPA fails the strict scrutiny required of content-based
speech restrictions,” the groups argued.
Three amicus briefs in support of the ACLU/ALA position have also
been filed by the Online Policy Group, the Free Expression Policy Project
and the Association of American Publishers.
