|
From The Charleston
Gazette
Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Internet Porn Filters
Legitimate Web Sites Would Be Adversely Affected, Judges Rule
Saturday June 1, 2002
By Knight-Ridder
PHILADELPHIA â A special three-judge panel Friday morning invalidated Congress'
third attempt at
regulating the Internet, ruling that the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000
requiring pornography
filters on any library receiving federal funds violates the First Amendment rights of
adult patrons.
The 195-page opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker, chief of the
U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, and concurred in by U.S. District Judges John P. Fullam
and Harvey
Bartle III, bars the federal government from implementing the law, which was to have
gone into effect
July 1.
Under the provisions of the law, Friday's decision goes directly to the U.S. Supreme
Court for review.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said government lawyers were
reviewing the opinion but
declined to comment further.
The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union last year
sued, challenging the
law's constitutionality, contending it violated free speech provisions of the First
Amendment and would
force librarians nationwide to give up federal money and face other penalties if they
did not install the
so-called Internet filters on library computers accessible to minors.
One crucial piece of evidence that emerged during seven days of testimony before
the three judges in
March and April was that no commercial software exists that will block hard-core
pornographic sites
without also blocking legitimate Web sites on medical and social issues.
"We are sympathetic to the position of the government," wrote Becker, "believing
that it would be
desirable if there were a means to ensure that public library patrons could share in
the informational
bonanza of the Internet while being insulated from materials that . . . are obscene,
child pornography, or
in the case of minors, harmful to minors.
"Unfortunately this outcome, devoutly to be wished, is not available in this less than
best of all possible
worlds," Becker continued, adding that "the blocking software is [at least for the
foreseeable future]
incapable of effectively blocking the majority of materials in the categories defined
by CIPA without
overblocking a substantial amount of materials."
The judges wrote that "less restrictive alternatives exist" than blocking adult access
to legitimate Web
sites and many of those alternatives are already in use.
At the trial, librarians from around the country testified about such different tacks as
policies warning
patrons that library Internet terminals may not be used to view child pornography or
other illegal forms
of speech, penalties imposed on patrons who violate the policies, requiring parental
consent or presence
before minors may use library computers, and optional software filters, privacy
screens, recessed
monitors, and placement of computers in areas where passersby will not be
"unwillingly exposed to
sexually explicit content on the Internet."
Government lawyers had argued that librarians could simply disable Internet filtering
software when
requested to do so by patrons, but the judges wrote that the government's
suggestion "will deter many
patrons because they are embarrassed, or desire to protect their privacy or remain
anonymous."
The judges also noted that librarians from smaller communities testified that
disabling software filters
could be impractical in some branches where technically trained staff are not always
on duty, requiring
patrons to return several days later.
The ruling was praised by the plaintiffs and civil rights groups.
The Chicago-based American Library Association, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit,
released a statement
"applauding the panel of judges for their thoughtfulness and clear understanding of
the issues at stake. ...
The Children's Internet Protection Act ... strikes at the heart of our users' ability to
choose and access
information online."
"Because filters overblock and underblock," said Association President John W.
Berry, "they restrict
speech and offer a false sense of security that children are protected when they are
not."
"I would hope now that with three strikes Congress would get out of the business of
attempting to stifle
free speech on the Internet," said Stefan Presser, legal director of the ACLU in
Philadelphia and one of
the attorneys involved in the trial.
"I think that Americans can continue to trust that their librarians will take their job
seriously and will both
protect the children while making available speech that is constitutionally
protected," Presser added.
| 
