United States v. American Library Association, No. 02-361 (U.S. Sup. Ct. June 23, 2003)
United States v. American Library Association, No. 02-361 (U.S. Sup. Ct. June 23, 2003)
Opinion at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZS.html
In response to the proliferation of pornographic material available on the World Wide Web, Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials when accessing the Internet on public library computers. Under the CIPA, public libraries that receive federal subsidies under the Library Services and Technology Act and/or “E-rate discounts” under the Telecommunications Act are required to use Internet filters in order to block access to sexually explicit speech. Given the limitations of these current filters, a large amount of protected speech is blocked while pornographic material can still be viewed. For example, the filters block access to legitimate medical information while pornographic images can be accessed because the filters are limited to detecting text. A coalition of public libraries concerned that despite their best efforts they would be unable to separate the wheat, i.e., protected speech, from the chafe, i.e., pornographic sites, filed suit challenging the CIPA on First Amendment grounds. Pursuant to the CIPA, a three-judge court was empanelled in order to expedite a decision before the July 1, 2002 date for public libraries to receive federal subsidies.
The court held that §§ 1712(a)(2) and 1721(b) of the CIPA, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(6) respectively, were facially invalid under the First Amendment. As a result, it permanently enjoined the federal government from enforcing those sections. The court found that the limitations inherent in the current filtering technology mandated by the CIPA would require public libraries attempting to comply with CIPA to restrict patrons’ access to a substantial amount of protected speech. It therefore, concluded that libraries complying with CIPA’s conditions would be faced with violating patrons’ First Amendment free speech rights. The court noted that because it was basing its decision on facially invalidity, it would not reach the issues of prior restraint, vagueness, or cognate unconstitutional conditions theory. The United States’ petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was granted.
The Supreme Court in a six to three decision reversed the district court and upheld the constitutionality of CIPA. Chief Justice Rehnquist spoke for the Court. He concluded that the district court’s analysis was flawed because it relied on the belief that public libraries are public forums and, therefore any restrictions on speech or expression in such forums are subject to heightened or strict scrutiny. Instead, the Chief justice found public libraries are neither “traditional” nor “designated” public forums. As a result, any government attempt to restrict speech in libraries is subject only to the rational relationship test. Applying that that test, Chief Justice Rehniquist concluded that the small burden imposed on library patrons seeking legitimate Internet materials by filtering software was outweighed by the government’s interest in protecting children from obscenity, child pornography and other materials harmful to minors.