First amendment activists last week hailed what they called another victory for free speech on the Internet, after a three-judge federal panel in Philadelphia threw out the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires that libraries receiving federal funds use software that filters out pornographic content. CIPA was signed into law in 2000 and would have required libraries to install Internet filtering software by July.
The suit to overturn the law was originally filed last year by the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. Judith Krug, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, said that CIPA created a situation that forced economically disadvantaged libraries "to use their already scarce resources to install expensive and unreliable filtering software, or be stripped of important financial assistance that they need to provide online access to all users." The Justice Department is studying the opinion, but an appeal is likely. The CIPA was enacted under "fast track" provisions that send it directly to the U.S. Supreme Court if there is an appeal.
The panel of judges found that Internet filter software tends to block access to Web sites that contain protected speech. During two weeks of testimony earlier this year, the judges heard that there was no currently available software that could block hardcore pornography without blocking sites offering legitimate medical or social content. In a 195-page decision handed down May 31, the judges said that less restrictive alternatives exist and noted that many libraries are already using such alternatives. The judges wrote that "any 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."
Judy Platt, spokesperson for the Association of American Publishers, told PW that while the AAP was not a party to the suit, the organization was monitoring it closely. However, she said, the AAP would likely be a more active participant once the Supreme Court takes up the case. "We're delighted with the ruling," said Platt. "The Court gets it. You can't block protected material in hopes of stopping pornography. The Court has been very good on the First Amendment."
