United States v. American Library Association
Encyclopedia
United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194
(2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress
has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate
discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that: 1.) public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights; 2.) The Children's Internet Protection Act
is not unconstitutional.
(CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000. CIPA required that in order to qualify for federal funding, public libraries had to install Internet filtering software on their computers. The American Library Association
, a group of public libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web site publishers challenged this law. They claimed that it improperly required them to restrict the First Amendment
rights of library patrons. The Eastern Pennsylvania District Court
ruled in a 3-0 decision that the CIPA did in fact violate patrons' First Amendment rights. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, ruled on whether public libraries' use of Internet filtering software violated patrons' First Amendment rights.
program, which subsidizes internet technology and connectivity for schools and libraries. In early 2001, the FCC issued rules implementing CIPA.
Justice David Souter (with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining) dissented submitting that blocking an adult's access to material harmful to minors is a constitutionally-impermissible content-based restriction on the communication of material in the library's control. Justice Souter argued that strict scrutiny ought to have been applied, and that CIPA would fail this test because it was not narrowly tailored enough to achieve the government's compelling interest in protecting minors from accessing obscene images without infringing the fundamental rights of adult library patrons.
(ACLU) said that it was "disappointed" that the Supreme Court held that "Congress can force public libraries to install blocking software on library Internet terminals, but noted that the ruling minimized the law's impact on adults, who can insist that the software be disabled".
"'Although we are disappointed that the Court upheld a law that is unequivocally a form of censorship, there is a silver lining. The Justices essentially rewrote the law to minimize its effect on adult library patrons,' said Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, which had challenged the law on behalf of libraries, adult and minor library patrons, and Internet content providers."
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate
E-rate
E-Rate is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission .-Function:...
discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that: 1.) public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights; 2.) The Children's Internet Protection Act
Children's Internet Protection Act
The Children's Internet Protection Act requires that K-12 schools and libraries in the United States use Internet filters and implement other measures to protect children from harmful online content as a condition for the receipt of certain federal funding...
is not unconstitutional.
Facts
The Children's Internet Protection ActChildren's Internet Protection Act
The Children's Internet Protection Act requires that K-12 schools and libraries in the United States use Internet filters and implement other measures to protect children from harmful online content as a condition for the receipt of certain federal funding...
(CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000. CIPA required that in order to qualify for federal funding, public libraries had to install Internet filtering software on their computers. The American Library Association
American Library Association
The American Library Association is a non-profit organization based in the United States that promotes libraries and library education internationally. It is the oldest and largest library association in the world, with more than 62,000 members....
, a group of public libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web site publishers challenged this law. They claimed that it improperly required them to restrict the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
rights of library patrons. The Eastern Pennsylvania District Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of the original 13 federal judiciary districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789...
ruled in a 3-0 decision that the CIPA did in fact violate patrons' First Amendment rights. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, ruled on whether public libraries' use of Internet filtering software violated patrons' First Amendment rights.
Background of CIPA
The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers. CIPA imposed certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding under the E-rateE-rate
E-Rate is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission .-Function:...
program, which subsidizes internet technology and connectivity for schools and libraries. In early 2001, the FCC issued rules implementing CIPA.
Conclusion
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision, and upheld the constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires public libraries receiving federal funds related to Internet access to install filtering devices on computer terminals that block a user's ability to view on-line pornography, as well as other obscenities that may be harmful to children. The Court reversed the judgment of the District Court that this content-based restriction on Internet speech was invalid on its face because available filtering devices "overblock" some constitutionally protected material, and thus do not meet the First Amendment's narrow tailoring requirement. The Supreme Court held that the public forum principles on which the district court relied are "out of place in the context of this case" and that Internet access in public libraries "is neither a 'traditional' nor a 'designated' public forum." A public forum is created when the government makes an affirmative choice to open up an area for use as a public forum. Libraries, however, do not acquire Internet terminals in order to "create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak." The Court explained that the Internet is simply "another method for making information available in a school or library . . . [and is] no more than a technological extension of the book stack." The Chief Justice wrote an opinion for a plurality that also included Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. Justices Kennedy and Breyer wrote separate concurrences, and Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg dissented.Dissent
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented submitting that CIPA unlawfully conditioned receipt of government funding on the restriction of First Amendment rights because CIPA denied the libraries any discretion in judging the merits of the blocked websites.Justice David Souter (with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining) dissented submitting that blocking an adult's access to material harmful to minors is a constitutionally-impermissible content-based restriction on the communication of material in the library's control. Justice Souter argued that strict scrutiny ought to have been applied, and that CIPA would fail this test because it was not narrowly tailored enough to achieve the government's compelling interest in protecting minors from accessing obscene images without infringing the fundamental rights of adult library patrons.
Reaction
The American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
(ACLU) said that it was "disappointed" that the Supreme Court held that "Congress can force public libraries to install blocking software on library Internet terminals, but noted that the ruling minimized the law's impact on adults, who can insist that the software be disabled".
"'Although we are disappointed that the Court upheld a law that is unequivocally a form of censorship, there is a silver lining. The Justices essentially rewrote the law to minimize its effect on adult library patrons,' said Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, which had challenged the law on behalf of libraries, adult and minor library patrons, and Internet content providers."
Further reading
- United States v. American Library Association: A Missed Opportunity for the Supreme Court to Clarify Application of First Amendment Law to Publicly Funded Expressive Institutions by: Robert Corn-Revere
- Internet Censorship: United States v. American Library Association by: Martha McCarthy, Ph.D.
- High Court Hears Arguments on Library Internet Filters by: Tony Mauro