Children's Internet Protection Act example essay topic

On March 5th 2003, The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The law requires public schools and libraries to install Internet filters on their computers so children and adults cannot view "inappropriate" information on the Internet. Schools and libraries that fail to install filters stand to lose federal "E-rate" funding for Internet access. The Justice Department contends that CIPA gives local communities the alternative to set their filtering software at varying levels. Government attorneys also dispute that schools and libraries are not necessary to install the software; as an alternative, they could choose not to receive federal funds. Opponents, as well as the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, quarrel that filters are a flawed tool that restricts the rights of students and adults to view First Amendment-protected information.

The author gives two views into the argument, and lets the reader decided a stance on this issue. The first view is that of Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson. Olson takes the issue in defense of the Children's Internet Protection Act, stating 'when libraries block Internet pornography from computer terminals, they are simply refusing to put on their computer screens the same material they do not put on their shelves'. Olson feels that as libraries have banned books from shelves in that past, they are also entitled the right to ban certain web sites that may share the same content. In offense to the Children's Internet Protection Act, Paul M. Smith feels the act is against First Amendment rights. Smith, who has been on behalf of the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union since this bill was first signed in 2000, has a different view to library filtering then Olson.

Smith sees the Internet not as a library "bookshelf", yet as a "public forum". As a public forum smith feels that to require libraries to refuse the right to use the Internet would be 'the end of the public forum doctrine,' ' Therefore, under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, the government may not limit speech in a "public forum" lacking an interest and a policy narrowly modified to serve that interest. The issue currently under debate is whether to consider the Internet as a mere old-fashioned library bookshelf or a public forum? Currently the government distributes more than $200 million a year in grants and subsidies that give public libraries "discounted Internet access". Mr. Olson argues that if a certain library felt that the bill was a violation of there rights they could decline filtering the Internet, yet loose federal funding.

Over the past six years, Congress has made many attempts to control porn on the Internet. The result is a confusing collection of laws that, at least in theory, protect children from material that some communities consider unsuitable. My view on this issue is merely that of Mr. Olson. I feel that if the library has the right to regulate books on shelves, they should also have the right to regulate Internet usage. I see the library not as a public forum; therefore I feel it does not violate First Amendment rights. If per say a certain community did feel it violates there rights, under any circumstance they have the choice not to participate in the filtering law, yet will be subject to loose federal funding.

Ultimately I feel the choice lies in the residents of communities around the country.