Term: 2002
Docket: 02-361
United States, Et Al. v. American Library Association, Inc., Et Al.
- Pro
02-361 UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION Ruling below: ED Pennsylvania, 201 F. Supp.2d 401. QUESTION PRESENTED The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No.106-554, Div. B, Tit. XVII, 114 Stat. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996,47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp. V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of a "technology protection measure" on Internet- connected computers that protects against access by all persons to "visual depictions" that are "obscene" or "child pornography ,"and that protects against access by minors to "visual depictions" that are "harmful to minors." 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp. V 1999); 20 U .S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, thereby exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause. PROB. JURIS. NOTED: 11/12/02
In the case of United States v. American Library Association, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Congress to require public schools and libraries to install internet filtering software in order to receive federal funding. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) had been challenged by a group of libraries and patrons who argued that this requirement violated their First Amendment rights because it could potentially block access to legitimate information sources along with obscene or harmful content. However, the court held in a 6-3 decision that any over-blocking could be remedied on a case-by-case basis without undue burden, and thus did not constitute an infringement on free speech rights. The majority opinion emphasized that public libraries' mission is not just providing information but also includes preventing exposure to inappropriate material; hence CIPA simply aids them in fulfilling this role.
In the dissenting opinion for United States v. American Library Association, Justice Souter argued that requiring libraries to install internet filters as a condition of receiving federal funding violated the First Amendment rights of library users. He contended that these filters often blocked access to constitutionally protected speech and were not narrowly tailored enough to serve a compelling government interest. Furthermore, he believed that this requirement imposed an unconstitutional condition on libraries by forcing them to limit their patrons' First Amendment rights in exchange for federal funds. Justice Souter also disagreed with the majority's view that public libraries are similar to schools or broadcasters who have traditionally had more leeway in limiting free speech due its captive audience; instead, he saw libraries as places where individuals voluntarily seek out information from diverse sources.
