Background and History of CIPA

The CIPA has not been the only attempt by Congress to control questionable online activities. The first attempt was made with the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a provision contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act prohibited sending indecent material over the Internet. Challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Library Association (ALA), the Supreme Court struck down the CDA in June of 1997, stating that the law was too broad in nature and would criminalize constitutionally protected speech.

A second attempt to control access to inappropriate cyber-materials was made in October of 1998 with the passing of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). This law included restrictions such as requiring commercial adult entities to have credit card verification systems in place to prevent minors from accessing sexually explicit sites. To increase its chance of passing, COPA was drafted to include the phrase "harmful to minors." This law was once again challenged by groups led by the ACLU. A U.S. District Court for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania heard the case and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs thus banning the law from taking affect. The government appealed. But in June 2000, the Court of Appeals once again agreed with the plaintiff, and upheld the injunction to halt COPA. Ultimately, COPA made its way up to the Supreme Court where the law was ping-ponged back to the lower court for review. It is here that COPA resides without a ruling. NEWS FLASH: A long awaited decision on COPA occurred on Thursday, March 22, 2007. A Philadelphia judge ruled against the law stating that internet filtering software presents a more effective way to barricade children from sexually explicit sites. This decision permanently puts COPA to rest.

In December of 2000, a bill called the Children's Internet Protection Act, sponsored by Senator John McCain, rode its way into town making this the third attempt by Congress to censor unwarranted access to the Internet by minors. It only took one month before a court battle ensued. The ACLU and the ALA again challenged the law, stating it unconstitutional and a violation of First Amendment rights.

In May of 2002, a federal district court in Philadelphia overturned the provision of the CIPA that required libraries to use content filters on their computers or otherwise lose funding. Once again, the government appealed.

In June of 2003, the Supreme Court reversed the federal district court's decision with a 6-3 vote. Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated:

"To the extent that libraries wish to offer unfiltered access, they are free to do so without federal assistance."

In other words, the government had the right to decide the scope to which its money was to be spent. The Supreme Court also made it clear that under the provisions of CIPA, filters could be disabled if so requested by an adult.