Library web filters are constitutional, says Supreme Court

CIPA came into effect in the US on 20th April 2001, intended to protect minors. It obliges schools and public libraries where more than one computer is connected to the internet to use filtering software blocking images defined as "obscene", "child pornography" or otherwise "harmful to minors."

The law also requires adults to get permission to access such material. Libraries that fail to comply are barred from receiving federal funds.

Arguments took place before the Supreme Court in March, when Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued for the US that libraries do not provide adult videos and magazines on their shelves, therefore should not be required to offer access to porn on their computers.

Paul Smith, a lawyer for the American Library Association, countered that filtering programs unintentionally block access to a large amount of legitimate material and amount to censorship.

In separate cases, the US Supreme Court has already declared invalid two internet laws and part of a third internet law in circumstances of free speech prevailing against censorship. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has approved a law that does potentially restricts free speech rights in using the internet.

The decision was 6 to 3 in favour of upholding the Act, the majority reasoning that a requirement that libraries filter access to the internet did not violate the First Amendment rights, particularly as it would be an easy matter for the library to switch off the software if requested by an adult customer.

The decision states:

"Concerns over filtering software's tendency to erroneously 'overblock' access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories software users intend to block are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled."

Family and children's organisations were delighted by the decision. Jack Samad, senior vice president at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, said, "The bottom line is that parents should be able to take their children to or drop their kids off at a neighborhood library without worrying that they're entering a porn shop in disguise".

He added, "This law is in the best interests of families and communities as a whole."

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, said,

"The ruling makes clear that there is not a First Amendment exemption to internet pornography aimed at children. This is a landmark case that will ultimately help pave the way for a clearer understanding on how to set parameters for a deepening problem - pornography aimed at children on the internet."

But free speech advocates were angered. Electronic Frontier Foundation Attorney Kevin Bankston said:

"The Supreme Court today dealt a tremendous blow to the free speech rights of child and adult library patrons and internet publishers by supporting Congress' mandate that libraries must install faulty Internet blocking software to obtain federal funding or discounts."

The EFF Media Relations Director Will Doherty added, "The Children's Internet Protection Act holds library patrons and students hostage to faulty blocking software created with arbitrary standards foreign to their own communities."

The Supreme Court decision is available at www.cdt.org/speech/cipa/030623decision.pdf