Children's Internet Protection Act

Last updated
Children's Internet Protection Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Acronyms (colloquial)CIPA
Enacted bythe 106th United States Congress
Citations
Public law Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  106–554 (text) (PDF)
Statutes at Large 114  Stat.   2763A-335
Codification
Titles amended20; 47
U.S.C. sections amended 20 U.S.C.   § 9134;
47 U.S.C.   § 254
Legislative history
  • Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 21, 2000
United States Supreme Court cases
United States v. American Library Ass'n , 539 U.S. 194 (2003)

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is one of a number of bills that the United States Congress proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online.

Contents

Background

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 U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

CIPA represented a change in strategy by Congress. While the federal government had no means of directly controlling local school and library boards, many schools and libraries took advantage of Universal Service Fund (USF) discounts derived from universal service fees paid by users in order to purchase eligible telecom services and Internet access. In passing CIPA, Congress required libraries and K-12 schools using these E-Rate discounts on Internet access and internal connections to purchase and use a "technology protection measure" on every computer connected to the Internet. These conditions also applied to a small subset of grants authorized through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). CIPA did not provide additional funds for the purchase of the "technology protection measure".

Stipulations

CIPA requires K-12 schools and libraries using E-Rate discounts to operate "a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors". Such a technology protection measure must be employed "during any use of such computers by minors". The law also provides that the school or library "may disable the technology protection measure concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose". Schools and libraries that do not receive E-Rate discounts or only receive discounts for telecommunication services and not for Internet access or internal connections, do not have an obligation to filter under CIPA. As of 2007, approximately one-third of libraries had chosen to forego federal E-Rate and certain types of LSTA funds so they would not be required to institute filtering. [1]

This act has several requirements for institutions to meet before they can receive government funds. Libraries and schools must "provide reasonable public notice and hold at least one public hearing or meeting to address the proposed Internet safety policy" ( 47 U.S.C.   § 254(1)(B) ) as added by CIPA sec. 1732).

The policy proposed at this meeting must address:

CIPA requires schools monitor minors' Internet use, but does not require tracking by libraries. [2] All Internet access, even by adults, must be filtered, though filtering requirements can be less restrictive for adults (filtering obscene and pornographic material but not other "harmful to minors" materials).

Content to be filtered

The following content must be filtered or blocked:

Some of the terms mentioned in this act, such as "inappropriate matter" and what is "harmful to minors", are explained in the law. Under the Neighborhood Act ( 47 U.S.C.   § 254(l)(2) as added by CIPA sec. 1732), the definition of "inappropriate matter" is locally determined:

Local Determination of Content – a determination regarding what matter is inappropriate for minors shall be made by the school board, local educational agency, library, or other United States authority responsible for making the determination. No agency or instrumentality of the Government may – (a) establish criteria for making such determination; (b) review agency determination made by the certifying school, school board, local educational agency, library, or other authority; or (c) consider the criteria employed by the certifying school, school board, educational agency, library, or other authority in the administration of subsection 47 U.S.C.   § 254(h)(1)(B) .

The CIPA defines "harmful to minors" as: [3]

Any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that – (i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

As mentioned above, there is an exception for "bona fide research". An institution can disable filters for adults in the pursuit of bona fide research or another type of lawful purpose. However, the law provides no definition for "bona fide research". However, in a later ruling the U.S. Supreme Court said that libraries would be required to adopt an Internet use policy providing for unblocking the Internet for adult users, without a requirement that the library inquire into the user's reasons for disabling the filter. Justice Rehnquist stated "[a]ssuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter". [4] This effectively puts the decision of what constitutes "bona fide research" in the hands of the adult asking to have the filter disabled. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) subsequently instructed libraries complying with CIPA to implement a procedure for unblocking the filter upon request by an adult. [5]

Suit challenging CIPA's constitutionality

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. It charged first that, because CIPA's enforcement mechanism involved removing federal funds intended to assist disadvantaged facilities, "CIPA runs counter to these federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans". Second, it argued that "no filtering software successfully differentiates constitutionally protected speech from illegal speech on the Internet".

Working with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ALA successfully challenged the law before a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In a 200-page decision, the judges wrote that "in view of the severe limitations of filtering technology and the existence of these less restrictive alternatives [including making filtering software optional or supervising users directly], we conclude that it is not possible for a public library to comply with CIPA without blocking a very substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment". 201 F.Supp.2d 401, 490 (2002).

Upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, the law was upheld as constitutional as a condition imposed on institutions in exchange for government funding. [4] In upholding the law, the Supreme Court, adopting the interpretation urged by the U.S. Solicitor General at oral argument, made it clear that the constitutionality of CIPA would be upheld only "if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request".

In the ruling Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas, concluded two points. First, "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, and is a valid exercise of Congress' spending power". [6] The argument goes that, because of the immense amount of information available online and how quickly it changes, libraries cannot separate items individually to exclude, and blocking entire websites can often lead to an exclusion of valuable information. Therefore, it is reasonable for public libraries to restrict access to certain categories of content. Secondly, "CIPA does not impose an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-Rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on that receipt, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech". [7] The argument here is that, the government can offer public funds to help institutions fulfill their roles, as in the case of libraries providing access to information. The Justices cited Rust v. Sullivan (1991) as precedent to show how the Court has approved using government funds with certain limitations to facilitate a program. Furthermore, since public libraries traditionally do not include pornographic material in their book collections, the court can reasonably uphold a law that imposes a similar limitation for online texts.

As noted above, the text of the law authorized institutions to disable the filter on request "for bona fide research or other lawful purpose", implying that the adult would be expected to provide justification with his request. But under the interpretation urged by the Solicitor General and adopted by the Supreme Court, libraries would be required to adopt an Internet use policy providing for unblocking the Internet for adult users, without a requirement that the library inquire into the user's reasons for disabling the filter.

Legislation after CIPA

An attempt to expand CIPA to include "social networking" web sites was considered by the U.S. Congress in 2006. See Deleting Online Predators Act. More attempts have been made recently by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) urging Congress to update CIPA terms in hopes of regulating, not abolishing, students' access to social networking and chat rooms. Neither ISTE nor CoSN wish to ban these online communication outlets entirely however, as they believe the "Internet contains valuable content, collaboration and communication opportunities that can and do materially contribute to a student's academic growth and preparation for the workforce". [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

An Internet filter is software that restricts or controls the content an Internet user is capable to access, especially when utilized to restrict material delivered over the Internet via the Web, Email, or other means. Such restrictions can be applied at various levels: a government can attempt to apply them nationwide, or they can, for example, be applied by an Internet service provider to its clients, by an employer to its personnel, by a school to its students, by a library to its visitors, by a parent to a child's computer, or by an individual user to their own computers. The motive is often to prevent access to content which the computer's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable. When imposed without the consent of the user, content control can be characterised as a form of internet censorship. Some filter software includes time control functions that empowers parents to set the amount of time that child may spend accessing the Internet or playing games or other computer activities.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Online Protection Act</span> Former U.S. law to protect minors from certain material on the Internet

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

The American Library Association (ALA) is a nonprofit organization based in the United States that promotes libraries and library education internationally. It is the oldest and largest library association in the world.

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 (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and internet access. It is one of four support programs funded through a universal service fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (DOPA) is a bill brought before the United States House of Representatives on May 9, 2006 by Republican Pennsylvania Representative (R-PA) Mike Fitzpatrick. The bill, if enacted, would have amended the Communications Act of 1934, requiring schools and libraries that receive E-rate funding to protect minors from online predators in the absence of parental supervision when using "Commercial Social Networking Websites" and "Chat Rooms". The bill would prohibit schools and libraries from providing access to these types of websites to minors or create restrictions to use of these type of sites. The bill also would require the institutions to be capable of disabling the restrictions for "use by an adult or by minors with adult supervision to enable access for educational purposes."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Burt (filtering advocate)</span> American content filtering advocate

David Burt is a former librarian and a longtime advocate for content-control software. Burt's research on Internet filtering and the problems allegedly associated with unfiltered Internet access have been cited by both the United States Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States in upholding the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). He is discussed in various sources such as the book Pornified.

Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations. It is when a spokesperson, employer, or business associate sanctions a speaker's speech by threat of monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace. It is present in many different kinds of industries.

Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

Internet censorship in the United Kingdom is conducted under a variety of laws, judicial processes, administrative regulations and voluntary arrangements. It is achieved by blocking access to sites as well as the use of laws that criminalise publication or possession of certain types of material. These include English defamation law, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom, regulations against incitement to terrorism and child pornography.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Block (Internet)</span> Restriction on accessing an online resource

On the Internet, a block or ban is a technical measure intended to restrict access to information or resources. Blocking and its inverse, unblocking, may be implemented by the owners of computers using software.

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 plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school and library usage of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights and that the Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech or expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and state laws on obscenity differ. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

Web filtering in schools blocks students from inappropriate and distracting content across the web, while allowing sites that are selected by school administrators. Rather than simply blocking off large portions of the Internet, many schools utilize customizable web filtering systems that provide them with greater control over which sites are allowed and which are blocked. Schools will typically block social media websites, games, pornography, other distracting websites, websites that harm academic integrity, websites that bypass web filtering, etc.

<i>Florence v. Shurtleff</i> 2012 US federal court case

Florence v. Shurtleff, Civil No. 2:05CV000485, was a case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order stating that individuals could not be prosecuted for posting adult content that was constitutionally protected on general access websites, nor could they be civilly liable for failing to prevent access to adult content, so long as the material is identifiable by filtering software. The order was the result of a 2005 lawsuit, The King's English v. Shurtleff, brought by Utah bookstores, artists, Internet Service Providers and the other organizations challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of a Utah law intended to protect minors from adult content.

<i>Not in Front of the Children</i> Book by Marjorie Heins

Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth is a non-fiction book by attorney and civil libertarian, Marjorie Heins about freedom of speech and the relationship between censorship and the "think of the children" argument. The book presents a chronological history of censorship from Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages to the present. It discusses notable censored works, including Ulysses by James Joyce, Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence and the seven dirty words monologue by comedian George Carlin. Heins discusses censorship aimed at youth in the United States through legislation including the Children's Internet Protection Act and the Communications Decency Act.

The precise number of websites blocked in the United Kingdom is unknown. Blocking techniques vary from one Internet service provider (ISP) to another with some sites or specific URLs blocked by some ISPs and not others. Websites and services are blocked using a combination of data feeds from private content-control technology companies, government agencies, NGOs, court orders in conjunction with the service administrators who may or may not have the power to unblock, additionally block, appeal or recategorise blocked content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online predator</span> Person who commits child sexual abuse via the Internet

Online predators are individuals who commit child sexual abuse that begins or takes place on the Internet.

References

  1. ↑ McClure, Charles R.; Paul T. Jaeger (2009). Public Libraries and Internet Service Roles: Measuring and Maximizing Internet Services. ALA Editions. ISBN   978-0-8389-3576-7.
  2. ↑ "FCC guide: Children's Internet Protection Act". Federal Communications Commission . Retrieved 2011-08-17.
  3. ↑ Secs. 1703(b)(2), 20 U.S.C. sec 3601(a)(5)(F) as added by CIPA sec 1711, 20 U.S.C. sec 9134(b)(f )(7)(B) as added by CIPA sec 1712(a), and 147 U.S.C. sec. 254(h)(c)(G) as added by CIPA sec. 1721(a))
  4. 1 2 United States v. American Library Ass'n , 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
  5. ↑ "FCC Order 03-188" (PDF). 2003-07-23. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-03-21. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  6. ↑ American Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. at 214.
  7. ↑ American Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. at 210.
  8. ↑ "An update to the Children's Internet Protection Act". Thumann Resources. Archived from the original on 2012-03-30. Retrieved 2011-08-17.

FCC information and regulations

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.