Last week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will consider the constitutionality of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a law that attempts to protect children from Internet pornography. The Court’s announcement re-ignites the controversy over Internet filtering software in public libraries and indicates the high constitutional importance of the law.

CIPA, which Congress passed in 2000, requires public libraries and schools to implement filtering software that blocks child pornography or Internet content that is “obscene” or “harmful to minors.” If libraries and schools refuse to install this software, they risk losing federal funding. In response, the ACLU and the American Library Association, supported by the California Library Association (CLA) and the Santa Cruz Public Library (SCPL), filed lawsuits last year to challenge the public library provision of CIPA on First Amendment grounds.

On May 31, 2002, a Pennsylvania district court held that CIPA violates the free speech rights of adult library patrons because it “induces” public libraries to use imprecise filtering software that “overblocks” and thus denies access to significant amounts of constitutionally protected online information. In other words, part of CIPA was struck down because, as Anne Turner, director of SCPL and president of the CLA, says, “Filters don’t work.”

Attacking CIPA on First Amendment grounds makes the most sense from a legal perspective, but free speech is not the only relevant issue. For instance, parental influence on children’s lives is perhaps the most important policy issue resulting from the CIPA debate. There is no better “Internet filter” for children than an involved parent.

According to a Department of Commerce report, a large percentage of children access the Internet from home, where parents can monitor and censure what their children are viewing. But parental influence also reaches beyond real-time monitoring. Parents provide children with the information and moral guidance that creates the foundation for confident and positive decisions.

Working with teachers and librarians, it is imperative that parents make education a top priority so children grow to be responsible and well-adjusted citizens. One-on-one mentoring is much more effective than flimsy software that provides an illusion of security and no true moral compass. As San Francisco Supervisor Mark Leno says, Internet filtering software does not “abrogate parental responsibility.”

In October 2001, Leno led the Board of Supervisors to pass a city-wide ordinance banning the use of Internet filtering software on all public computers, making it clear that local control is also key to this debate. Because public libraries are largely funded and run locally, it stands to reason that administrators and librarians are in the best position to understand the needs of their communities and respond appropriately.

Public libraries should be free to address the issue of Internet pornography based on the magnitude of the problem at each separate location. They should also be free to choose the solutions they believe will be the most effective and best reflect the values of their communities given the resources available.

“The local control issue is a really important one,” says Marcia Schneider, director of public affairs for the San Francisco Public Library.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in late winter or early spring, and whatever the outcome, blanket federal legislation to protect children on the Internet will never be a successful substitute for parental involvement and local supervision.

Sophia Cope is a law student at University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and an intern for the Center for Technology Studies at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

Sophia Cope is a law student at University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and an intern for the Center for Technology Studies at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.