Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court may have finally been presented with a federal law restricting the Internet that passes First Amendment muster, in its view. In oral arguments Wednesday in the case United States v. American Library Association, 02-361, the court seemed more accepting than usual of congressional enactments in this area. At issue was the 2001 Children’s Internet Protection Act, which requires public libraries receiving federal funds for Internet access to install software that blocks pornography. Libraries are allowed to disable the software in individual cases for adults for “bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” Beginning with the Communications Decency Act of 1995, the high court has struck down two federal Internet laws and part of a third, granting the Internet the highest level of First Amendment protection as a medium of communications akin to the Colonial town crier. But in part because the current law ties the restrictions to federal funding and also because of the unique setting of the public library, justices appeared more willing to accept the government’s defense of the legislation this time around. The law applied both to public libraries and their public school counterparts, but only the public library section was challenged by librarians. They claimed that the law forces libraries to violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights. A three-judge panel in Philadelphia struck down the law, finding that even as a condition of receiving federal funds, it was unconstitutional. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing in favor of the law, told the court Wednesday that what Congress required is merely an electronic version of what libraries do all the time: choosing which books to buy and which not to. Just as libraries decide not to buy certain books or magazines because of adult content, Olson said they should be able to block online material as well. “The First Amendment does not require libraries to sponsor the viewing of pornography,” Olson said. Justice David Souter protested that Internet blocking is unlike selecting books. When it chooses not to buy a book, Souter said, “It knows what it is deciding not to do. Here it does not know.” The blocking software is the creation of others, and thus, Souter said, “the inevitable price of this is blocking more than the statute requires.” Olson acknowledged that blocking technology is not perfect, but that the requirement to use it is “reasonable and rational.” Souter also said that libraries screen books in part because of limited shelf space. “A library can’t have every book. They’ve got to exclude some. Not [so with the] the Internet.” Other justices also sought to counter the analogy between book selection and Internet blocking. “This is a case about the Internet. It is not a case about books,” said Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Anthony Kennedy, noting that the Internet produces more than a million new sites daily, said, “It’s a whole new medium. It’s not like a library.” But apart from these comments, other justices were largely supportive of the law in their comments and questions. On behalf of the library group, Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith argued that when it comes into a public library, the Internet is “the most pure form of public forum you can imagine.” As such, restrictions have to withstand strict scrutiny, he argued. Several justices seemed skeptical. Justice Antonin Scalia said the fact that the restrictions were tied to federal funding required a different analysis, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said court precedent required caution before applying forum analysis to new situations. Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether a school library was also a public forum. Smith tried to qualify his answer, but when pressed by Breyer, he said it was. “So the Addison Hill Elementary School has to allow the worst kind of stuff there is,” Breyer said skeptically. Smith said restrictions would still be allowed because of the youth of the audience. Breyer persisted, arguing that asking a library to disable the blocking technology was not a “great burden.” Smith said it would be a burden, because patrons would have to explain their reason for needing unblocked material and might be “stigmatized” as a result. The unblocking might also delay a patron’s research. “That’s not atypical in research,” said O’Connor, analogizing it to a library obtaining a requested book from a neighboring library. Smith said the federal government had “no business” using its spending power to interfere with professional judgments by librarians about the material available to the public. Smith emphasized the crude state of the technology, which blocks access to legitimate sites about breast cancer, sexuality, even politics: “A huge percentage of sites that are blocked are not illegal even for children.” But O’Connor deflated that argument, expressing doubt that the court should base its constitutional finding on software flaws that could be fixed. Tony Mauro is Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media and The Recorder’ s Washington, D.C., affiliate Legal Times.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.