Misplaced Pages

United States v. American Library Ass'n

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from US v. ALA)

2003 United States Supreme Court case
United States v. American Library Association
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 5, 2003
Decided June 23, 2003
Full case nameUnited States, et al., Appellants v. American Library Association, Inc., et al.
Citations539 U.S. 194 (more)123 S. Ct. 2297; 156 L. Ed. 2d 221
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
Prior201 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D. Pa. 2002); probable jurisdiction noted, 537 U.S. 1017 (2002).
Holding
Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries to censor internet content in order to receive federal funding.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
PluralityRehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas
ConcurrenceKennedy (in judgment)
ConcurrenceBreyer (in judgment)
DissentStevens
DissentSouter, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Children's Internet Protection Act

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that public school and library usage of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights and that the Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.

Background

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000. CIPA was Congress's third attempt to regulate obscenity on the Internet, but the first two (the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998) were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional free speech restrictions, largely due to vagueness and overbreadth issues that caused those statutes to fail the strict scrutiny test.

CIPA required that in order to qualify for federal assistance for Internet access, public schools and libraries must install software that blocked images deemed obscene, and other material which could be dangerous for minor children. CIPA imposed certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding under the E-rate program or Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants, which subsidize internet technology and connectivity for schools and libraries. In 2001 the Federal Communications Commission issued rules implementing CIPA.

The American Library Association challenged this law, claiming that it improperly required them to restrict the First Amendment rights of consenting library patrons. The case originated in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which ruled that CIPA was unconstitutional because it restricted speech in a public forum (a school or library), and issued an injunction to prevent the statute from being enforced. The U.S. government appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court, due to a provision in the statute that permitted appeals to be heard directly by the Supreme Court without the usual intermediate appellate decision.

The Supreme Court considered whether public libraries' use of Internet filtering software violated patrons' First Amendment rights, as well as whether CIPA was a valid exercise of Congress' spending power by requiring filters for any library who wanted to receive federal funds for Internet access.

Opinion of the Court

In a plurality decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision, and affirmed the constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act. The court held that CIPA only required libraries to install software filters but not to require all patrons to use them, while patrons could also request that the filters be disabled. Thus, filters were not unacceptably restrictive.

The Supreme Court also held that the public forum principles on which the district court relied were "out of place in the context of this case" and that Internet access in public libraries "is neither a 'traditional' nor a 'designated' public forum" under the established public forum law. A library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to "create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak." The Court explained that the Internet is simply "another method for making information available in a school or library... no more than a technological extension of the book stack."

Dissenting opinions

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, submitting that CIPA unlawfully conditioned receipt of government funding on the restriction of First Amendment rights, because CIPA denied the libraries any discretion in judging the merits of the blocked websites.

Justice David Souter also dissented, arguing that CIPA was not narrowly tailored to achieve the government's legitimate interest in restricting harmful Internet content. He focused on the language of CIPA which said the library "may" unblock the filters for "bona fide research or other lawful purposes," which imposed eligibility on unblocking and left it up to the librarian's discretion. He believed this would prevent adults from accessing lawful and constitutionally protected speech. He suggested that to prevent this, children could be restricted to blocked terminals, leaving unblocked terminals available to adults. He believed CIPA to be an unconstitutional "content-based restriction on communication of material in the library's control that an adult could otherwise lawfully see" rising to the level of censorship.

Impact

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that it was "disappointed" that the Supreme Court held that Congress can force public libraries to install blocking software on their Internet terminals, but noted that the ruling minimized the law's impact on adults, who can request that the software be disabled. Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, also stated that "'Although we are disappointed that the Court upheld a law that is unequivocally a form of censorship, there is a silver lining. The Justices essentially rewrote the law to minimize its effect on adult library patrons."

In 2016, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in Wisconsin v. David J. Reidinger that a library patron did not have a First Amendment right to view pornography in a public library, and if other patrons complain, such conduct could be considered a disturbance and subjected to a misdemeanor charge.

Further reading

External links

References

  1. ^ United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
  2. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
  3. Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002).
  4. "United States v. American Library Association, Inc. | Case Brief for Law Students".
  5. "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)". May 5, 2011.
  6. American Library Ass'n v. United States, 201 F.Supp.2d 401 (E.D. Pa., 2002).
  7. "Spotlight on Schools - Internet Censorship: United States v. American Library Association".
  8. ^ "ACLU Disappointed in Ruling on Internet Censorship in Libraries, but Sees Limited Impact for Adults".
  9. "Library Porn Citation Upheld In Wisconsin". January 26, 2016. Retrieved January 31, 2016.
  10. "David J. Reidinger v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System" (PDF). www.wicourts.gov. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
American Library Association
Founders
Notable
divisions
Magazines and journals
Literary
awards and
honors
Books for adults
For children and
young adults
Book lists
Related
U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Unprotected speech
Clear and present danger
and imminent lawless action
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats and
threatening the President
of the United States
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth and Vagueness doctrines
Symbolic speech versus conduct
Content-based restrictions
Content-neutral restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy of others' speech
Government grants and subsidies
Government speech
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and similar laws
Licensing and restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Categories: