Court takes library porn filter case
Justices to review law aimed at blocking kids’ access to smut
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide if public libraries can be forced to install software that blocks sexually explicit Web sites, the latest in Congress’ string of attempts to shield children from Internet pornography.
CONGRESS HAS STRUGGLED to find ways to protect children from online smut without infringing on free speech.
The latest challenge involves the third law passed since 1996. The Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect.
The latest measure, signed by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, required public libraries receiving federal technology funds to install the filters on their computers or risk losing aid.
A federal panel ruled that the Children’s Internet Protection Act violates the First Amendment because the mandated filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornography.
“Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest,” the three judges wrote earlier this year.
ADMINISTRATION ARGUMENT
The Bush administration argued that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn’t have to offer access to porn on library computers.
The judges had recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, like requiring parental consent before a minor is allowed to use an unfiltered computer or requiring a parent to be present while a child surfs the Net.
The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law.
Paul M. Smith, the attorney for the library association, said more than 14 million people use libraries for Internet access. The latest restriction “takes a meat ax approach to an area that requires far more sensitive tools,” he argued.
Smith said that with filtering software, librarians would have no involvement in blocking decisions.
Texas had asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law.
“Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library, either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the library’s free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children,” wrote Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.
EXPEDITED REVIEW
Congress knew that the latest law would be challenged, and directed any appeals to go straight to the Supreme Court after a trial before a three-judge panel.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the lower court panel’s ruling hurts Congress’ effort to ensure that money spent “for educational and other purposes does not facilitate access to the enormous amount of illegal and harmful pornography on the Internet.”
Olson said librarians answer more than 7 million questions a week and should not have to be worried about online pornography.
The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. Earlier this year the court upheld part of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed “harmful to minors.” But justices did not rule on the law’s constitutionality, and the government was barred from enforcing it.
The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.
GUN RECORDS CASE ACCEPTED
The court also accepted another high-profile case on Tuesday, stepping into the gun debate by agreeing to decide whether the government can keep secret information on some gun purchases and crimes, including details of database checks like those used to track weapons in the sniper case.
The Bush administration, backed by the National Rifle Association and a police group, claims that confidential records are needed to safeguard investigations and protect people’s privacy.
Critics say the administration’s policy keeps the public in the dark about gun violence and how well crime-fighters are doing.
At issue for the Supreme Court is the scope of a federal public information law, which allows reporters and other outsiders to get unclassified government records that officials would not otherwise release.
The court will decide if the release of the data could interfere with law enforcement efforts, which would exempt it from the sunshine law.
FIREARM TRACES AT ISSUE
On the line is access to information on about 200,000 firearm traces a year, when officers confiscate a weapon in a crime then track down who made it, sold it and bought it.
The government releases some information now — after a time lapse — but erases the names of the gun maker, the seller, the buyer, and where the gun was used in crime, the Supreme Court was told.
The information is kept by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has been criticized by gun control advocates for what they consider its lax regulation of more than 100,000 licensed firearms dealers.
Justices to review law aimed at blocking kids’ access to smut
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide if public libraries can be forced to install software that blocks sexually explicit Web sites, the latest in Congress’ string of attempts to shield children from Internet pornography.
CONGRESS HAS STRUGGLED to find ways to protect children from online smut without infringing on free speech.
The latest challenge involves the third law passed since 1996. The Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect.
The latest measure, signed by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, required public libraries receiving federal technology funds to install the filters on their computers or risk losing aid.
A federal panel ruled that the Children’s Internet Protection Act violates the First Amendment because the mandated filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornography.
“Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest,” the three judges wrote earlier this year.
ADMINISTRATION ARGUMENT
The Bush administration argued that libraries are not required to have X-rated movies and pornographic magazines and shouldn’t have to offer access to porn on library computers.
The judges had recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, like requiring parental consent before a minor is allowed to use an unfiltered computer or requiring a parent to be present while a child surfs the Net.
The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law.
Paul M. Smith, the attorney for the library association, said more than 14 million people use libraries for Internet access. The latest restriction “takes a meat ax approach to an area that requires far more sensitive tools,” he argued.
Smith said that with filtering software, librarians would have no involvement in blocking decisions.
Texas had asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law.
“Parents should not be afraid to send their children to the library, either because they might be exposed to such materials or because the library’s free, filterless computers might attract people with a propensity to victimize children,” wrote Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week.
EXPEDITED REVIEW
Congress knew that the latest law would be challenged, and directed any appeals to go straight to the Supreme Court after a trial before a three-judge panel.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the lower court panel’s ruling hurts Congress’ effort to ensure that money spent “for educational and other purposes does not facilitate access to the enormous amount of illegal and harmful pornography on the Internet.”
Olson said librarians answer more than 7 million questions a week and should not have to be worried about online pornography.
The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. Earlier this year the court upheld part of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed “harmful to minors.” But justices did not rule on the law’s constitutionality, and the government was barred from enforcing it.
The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361.
GUN RECORDS CASE ACCEPTED
The court also accepted another high-profile case on Tuesday, stepping into the gun debate by agreeing to decide whether the government can keep secret information on some gun purchases and crimes, including details of database checks like those used to track weapons in the sniper case.
The Bush administration, backed by the National Rifle Association and a police group, claims that confidential records are needed to safeguard investigations and protect people’s privacy.
Critics say the administration’s policy keeps the public in the dark about gun violence and how well crime-fighters are doing.
At issue for the Supreme Court is the scope of a federal public information law, which allows reporters and other outsiders to get unclassified government records that officials would not otherwise release.
The court will decide if the release of the data could interfere with law enforcement efforts, which would exempt it from the sunshine law.
FIREARM TRACES AT ISSUE
On the line is access to information on about 200,000 firearm traces a year, when officers confiscate a weapon in a crime then track down who made it, sold it and bought it.
The government releases some information now — after a time lapse — but erases the names of the gun maker, the seller, the buyer, and where the gun was used in crime, the Supreme Court was told.
The information is kept by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has been criticized by gun control advocates for what they consider its lax regulation of more than 100,000 licensed firearms dealers.