Signed into law in 2000 but never enforced, CIPA requires public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet connectivity to filter every online workstation, even staff-only machines, but does not appropriate additional funds to purchase blocking software. Libraries that do not receive e-rate monies are not legally bound to comply. The American Library Association challenged the law’s constitutionality in public-library settings and won in a lower court in 2002.
The 6–3 Supreme Court ruling held that CIPA does not violate the First Amendment because public libraries do not offer Internet access “to create a public forum for Web publishers [but] to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality.” As to filters’ tendency to block constitutionally protected speech, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that, because CIPA allows librarians to disable a filter “without significant delay on an adult user’s request,” the goal of “protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors” outweighs any temporary inconvenience to adults.
“Libraries can still be safe places for parents to drop off their kids,” exulted Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) in the June 24 New York Times. “It validates the effectiveness and the usefulness of the technology,” commented David Burt, spokesperson for filter-maker N2H2, whose stock rose 35% the day after the ruling, according to the June 25 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He told the Times that the justices “correctly recognize that the technology does have flaws [that] can be easily dealt with by turning it off.” “We can live with that,” remarked Judith Krug, executive director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, telling the Associated Press June 25 that the decision gives filter manufacturers an opportunity “to shed a little sunshine” on what they block.
Emily Sheketoff, executive director of ALA’s Washington Office, told the Times that some libraries, such as San Francisco Public Library, would forgo e-rate funds rather than offer patrons “second-rate information.” Others, such as the filter-free Chicago Public Library, found they could not afford to lose their subsidy. “Sadly, this will take money away from the purchase of books or salaries,” Commissioner Mary Dempsey said in the June 26 Chicago Tribune of the estimated $200,000 CPL would spend to install and begin maintaining blocking software to retain its annual $500,000 e-rate grant.
Posted June 30, 2003.