Jonah Patel
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a bill proposed by the United States Congress to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online. The bill requires schools and libraries receiving certain federal funding to block children's access to obscene material, child pornography, and other harmful content. While the bill has been challenged on constitutional grounds, with opponents arguing that it requires libraries to unconstitutionally block access to protected information, the Supreme Court upheld the bill in a 6-3 vote in United States v. American Library Association (2003).
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Reason for the Act | To limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online |
| Previous attempts | The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act were deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court |
| CIPA's constitutionality | Upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. American Library Association (2003) |
| CIPA's constitutionality | The American Library Association (ALA) voted to challenge CIPA on the grounds that it required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the Internet |
| CIPA's constitutionality | CIPA does not violate First Amendment rights, and is a valid exercise of Congress' spending power |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The American Library Association's challenge to CIPA
- The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act
- The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. American Library Association
- CIPA's enforcement mechanism
- The constitutional right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech
The American Library Association's challenge to CIPA
On 17 January 2001, the American Library Association (ALA) voted to challenge the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) on the grounds that the law required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the internet. The ALA argued that CIPA's enforcement mechanism, which involved removing federal funds intended to assist disadvantaged facilities, ran counter to federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans. They also argued that no filtering software successfully differentiates constitutionally protected speech from illegal speech on the internet. The ALA worked with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to successfully challenge the law before a three-judge panel of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The ALA's challenge to CIPA was not the first time that the constitutionality of the Act had been questioned. Both of Congress's earlier attempts at restricting indecent internet content, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, were held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. CIPA represented a change in strategy by Congress, which recognised that the federal government had no means of directly controlling local school and library boards. Instead, CIPA required schools and libraries receiving certain federal funding to block children's access to obscene material, child pornography, and other harmful content.
Despite these concerns, the US Supreme Court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of CIPA in United States v. American Library Association (2003). Led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, four justices argued that Congress was free to add such conditions to its appropriations. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer joined this plurality by focusing chiefly on the fact that the law provided adults access to materials prohibited to children.
Constitution's Protection: Discrimination Against Homosexuals
You may want to see also
The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a bill proposed by the United States Congress to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online. The Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, two earlier attempts by Congress to restrict indecent Internet content, were deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 were struck down by the Supreme Court as overly broad. The Child Online Protection Act was specifically challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1997 and 2004.
The Children's Internet Protection Act, however, represented a change in strategy by Congress. While the federal government had no direct control over local school and library boards, many schools and libraries took advantage of Universal Service Fund (USF) discounts to purchase telecom services and Internet access. This allowed Congress to require schools and libraries receiving certain federal funding to block children's access to obscene material, child pornography, and other harmful content.
The American Library Association (ALA) voted to challenge CIPA in 2001, arguing that the law required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the Internet. They charged that CIPA's enforcement mechanism, which involved removing federal funds from disadvantaged facilities, ran counter to federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans. The ALA also argued that no filtering software could successfully differentiate between constitutionally protected speech and illegal speech on the Internet. Despite this challenge, the Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act by a 6-3 vote in United States v. American Library Association (2003).
Are Orders of Protection Constitutional? Examining the Legal Balance
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. American Library Association
The American Library Association (ALA) challenged CIPA on the grounds that it required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the internet. They argued that CIPA's enforcement mechanism, which involved removing federal funds intended to assist disadvantaged facilities, ran counter to federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans. Furthermore, the ALA claimed that no filtering software could successfully differentiate between constitutionally protected speech and illegal speech on the internet.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, argued that Congress was free to add such conditions to its appropriations. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer joined this plurality by focusing on the fact that the law provided adults access to materials prohibited to children.
The Court also addressed the First Amendment concerns raised by the ALA. It was argued that public libraries' use of internet filtering software did not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights, and that CIPA was a valid exercise of Congress' spending power. The Court further stated that CIPA did not impose an unconstitutional condition on libraries that received subsidies, as they were not required to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech.
Who Is Protected by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
CIPA's enforcement mechanism
The ALA's challenge to CIPA was successful before a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act by a 6-3 vote in United States v. American Library Association (2003). Led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, four justices argued that Congress was free to add such conditions to its appropriations. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer joined this plurality by focusing chiefly on the fact that the law provided adults access to materials prohibited to children.
Political Expression at Work: Free Speech or Not?
You may want to see also
The constitutional right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a bill proposed by the United States Congress to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online. The American Library Association (ALA) challenged CIPA on the grounds that it required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the internet. The ALA argued that no filtering software can successfully differentiate constitutionally protected speech from illegal speech on the internet.
However, others argue that because public libraries' use of internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights, CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution. They also argue that CIPA does not impose an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-Rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech.
The Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act by a 6-3 vote in United States v. American Library Association (2003). Led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, four justices argued that Congress was free to add such conditions to its appropriations. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer joined this plurality by focusing chiefly on the fact that the law provided adults access to materials prohibited to children.
Protecting Our Constitutional Rights: A Guide to Action
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003, which ruled that it was constitutional.
The Children's Internet Protection Act is a bill proposed by the United States Congress to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online.
Congress's earlier attempts at restricting indecent Internet content, the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, were held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. CIPA represented a change in strategy by Congress.
The Children's Internet Protection Act requires schools and libraries receiving certain federal funding to block children’s access to obscene material, child pornography, and material deemed harmful to minors.
On January 17, 2001, the American Library Association (ALA) voted to challenge CIPA, on the grounds that the law required libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutionally protected information on the Internet.
![Dennis and his Online Gaming Adventure!: Cyber safety can be fun [Internet safety for kids] (Diary of Elle: Cyber-safety can be fun!)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71HK35omlFL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
