Children's Internet Protection Act
Encyclopedia
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) 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. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 and was found to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court
on June 23, 2003.
proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography
and explicit content online. 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 utilized universal service fund discounts, derived from the universal service
fees paid by telecommunications users, to purchase eligible telecommunications services and Internet access. In passing CIPA, Congress required libraries and K-12 schools using these discounts (sometimes called "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 were also attached to a small subset of grants authorized through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). CIPA did not provide any additional funds for the purchase of the "technology protection measure."
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 any 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 filter the Internet access of their patrons and staff.
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’ as added by CIPA sec. 1732). The policy proposed at this meeting must address the following: (a) Measures to restrict a minor’s access to inappropriate or harmful materials on the Internet; (b) Security and safety of minors using chat rooms, email, instant messaging, or any other types of online communications; (c) Unauthorized disclosure of a minor’s personal information; and (d) Unauthorized access, such as hacking, by minors. CIPA does not require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults
Thus, under this legislation, all Internet access must be filtered for minors and adults, though the filtering requirements can be more restrictive for minors than for adults. 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 ( as added by CIPA sec. 1732), the definition of “Inappropriate Matter” is locally determined:
The CIPA defines “Harmful to minors” as:
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." 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.
(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
, 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. 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.” 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. And second, “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.” 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 cite precedent (Rust v. Sullivan
) 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.
K-12
K–12 is a designation for the sum of primary and secondary education. It is used in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where P–12 is also commonly used...
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. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 and was found to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
on June 23, 2003.
Earlier attempts to restrict indecency and a new approach under CIPA
CIPA is one of a number of bills that the United States CongressUnited 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....
proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography
Pornography
Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.Pornography may use any of a variety of media, ranging from books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video,...
and explicit content online. Both of Congress's earlier attempts at restricting indecent Internet content, the Communications Decency Act
Communications Decency Act
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.The Act was...
and the Child Online Protection Act
Child Online Protection Act
The Child Online Protection Act 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...
, were held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on 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...
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 utilized universal service fund discounts, derived from the universal service
Universal service
Universal service is an economic, legal and business term used mostly in regulated industries, referring to the practice of providing a baseline level of services to every resident of a country...
fees paid by telecommunications users, to purchase eligible telecommunications services and Internet access. In passing CIPA, Congress required libraries and K-12 schools using these discounts (sometimes called "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") on Internet access and internal connections to purchase and use a "technology protection measure" on every computer connected to the Internet. These conditions were also attached to a small subset of grants authorized through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). CIPA did not provide any additional funds for the purchase of the "technology protection measure."
What CIPA requires
CIPA requires K-12 schools and libraries using 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:...
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
Good faith
In philosophy, the concept of Good faith—Latin bona fides “good faith”, bona fide “in good faith”—denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides and perfidy...
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 any 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 filter the Internet access of their patrons and staff.
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’ as added by CIPA sec. 1732). The policy proposed at this meeting must address the following: (a) Measures to restrict a minor’s access to inappropriate or harmful materials on the Internet; (b) Security and safety of minors using chat rooms, email, instant messaging, or any other types of online communications; (c) Unauthorized disclosure of a minor’s personal information; and (d) Unauthorized access, such as hacking, by minors. CIPA does not require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults
Thus, under this legislation, all Internet access must be filtered for minors and adults, though the filtering requirements can be more restrictive for minors than for adults. The following content must be filtered or blocked:
- Obscene (for definition, see the case of Miller v. CaliforniaMiller v. CaliforniaMiller v. California, was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes...
1973) - Child Pornography (for definition, see 18 U.S.C. 2256)
- Harmful to Minors (for definition, see below)
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 ( 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 .
The CIPA defines “Harmful to minors” as:
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 suit able 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” (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)).
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." 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
Federal Communications Commission
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government, created, Congressional statute , and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the...
(FCC) subsequently instructed libraries complying with CIPA to implement a procedure for unblocking the filter upon request by an adult.
Suit challenging CIPA's constitutionality
On January 17, 2001, the American Library AssociationAmerican 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....
(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
Digital divide
The Digital Divide refers to inequalities between individuals, households, business, and geographic areas at different socioeconomic levels in access to information and communication technologies and Internet connectivity and in the knowledge and skills needed to effectively use the information...
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
American 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...
, 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. 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
William Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor is an American jurist who was the first female member of the Supreme Court of the United States. She served as an Associate Justice from 1981 until her retirement from the Court in 2006. O'Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981...
, Justice Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
, and Justice Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
, 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.” 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. And second, “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.” 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 cite precedent (Rust v. Sullivan
Rust v. Sullivan
Rust v. Sullivan, , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1991. The case concerned the legality and constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the use of funds spent by the U.S. federal government to promote family planning...
) 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
Good faith
In philosophy, the concept of Good faith—Latin bona fides “good faith”, bona fide “in good faith”—denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides and perfidy...
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.
Post-CIPA legislation
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 room sites. 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"See also
- Content-control softwareContent-control softwareContent-control software, also known as censorware or web filtering software, is a term for software designed and optimized for controlling what content is permitted to a reader, especially when it is used to restrict material delivered over the Web...
- Internet censorshipInternet censorshipInternet censorship is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative...
- The King's English v. ShurtleffThe King's English v. ShurtleffThe King’s English v. Shurtleff is a U.S. federal lawsuit filed on June 9, 2005, by a group of Utah bookstores, websites, Internet service providers and national trade associations challenging the constitutionality of a Utah law meant to restrict children’s access to material on the Internet.It...
- State of Connecticut v. Julie AmeroState of Connecticut v. Julie AmeroState of Connecticut v. Julie Amero is a court case in the 2000s concerning Internet privacy and DNS hijacking...
, a case on a related topic.
Legal history
- ALA's CIPA litigation history page.