CIPA: Policy Definition

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000 requires that schools and public libraries which receive federal funds must establish and implement an Internet Safety Policy. Schools and libraries receive money from the government in several ways. The E-Rate program, instituted under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, offers fiscal assistance to schools and libraries for expenses associated with Internet access. Under the Library Service and Technology Act of 1996 (LSTA), grant money is provided to assist in the electronic linking of library networks. The CIPA directly ties the establishment of an Internet Safety Policy to these funds.

Under the CIPA, an Internet Safety Policy must include the monitoring of online activities of minors as well as the installment of content filtering software on computers in order to block access to "objectionable" material considered harmful to children. Websites that are considered to be obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors are subject to blocking measures.

In addition, the CIPA mandates that schools and libraries address the safety of minors who are using e-mail, chat rooms and other forms of electronic communication. Policies must also be in place to deal with unauthorized access (such as "hacking") as well as unauthorized disclosure of personal information regarding minors.

Schools and libraries must show proof that their Internet Safety Policy is in place by certifying it with the federal government agencies that provide funding. If the institution fails to do so, they will not receive the discounts provided under the E-Rate program nor will they receive funds provided through the LSTA.

In 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set the requirements for CIPA's implementation.

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.

Filtering Foibles

The effectiveness of filtering software has been questionable. Filtering software can operate in several ways. Examples of screening techniques include keyword blocking, approved and disapproved site lists, and labeling and rating systems. The Internet Content Rating Association implements a system in which publishers can assign labels to their websites thus rating its content, similar to the movie rating system that we are familiar with.

The performance of filtering software has been reported to be both overzealous and deficient. Overblocking occurs when websites are unintentionally blocked. This is of special concern to individuals who may be searching for special health-related information. Sites that include information on topics such as HIV, depression, and sexual health are inadvertently blocked. According to a report conducted by The Kaiser Foundation, filters that were set at the most restrictive settings blocked 24% of general health care sites and 50% of sexual health sites. The Kaiser study also revealed that at the least restrictive settings, filtering software failed to block 13% of unwanted material. A more recent 2005 study, conducted by Consumer Reports, reveals that although filtering software is improving, the best filters that intercept porn sites also blocked sites related to health, sex education, drug education and politics. Furthermore, several sites were impervious to the filtering. These included sites that depict hate, violence, illegal drug use, and weapons-making. This is called underblocking, and occurs when objectionable material penetrates the filters.

The Filter Debate

There is no doubt that the intention of the CIPA is to protect our children from harm. I believe that both public and school librarians will agree with the underlying premise of this law. The question remains, however, is content filtering software the answer? Does it offer protection or is it censorship? This is a tricky one and places many librarians in the horns of a dilemma.

Groups such as the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union strongly believe that filters impede the citizen's right to constitutionally protected material. They believe that filtering software is fallible, offers parents a false sense of security, and imposes universal judgements on what is deemed inappropriate and what is acceptable. The ALA adamantly states that it is the parent and the parent alone that should make this determination.

Advocates of filtering sofware include groups such as the American Family Association as well as individuals like former librarian David Burt. Former author of website filteringfacts.org, David Burt has made the argument that libraries who implement filters are simply exercising their professional authority to develop the digital library collection, just as they would with the physical collection. He further states that libraries are "community-based family-oriented institutions" where pornography in any format should be excluded. David Burt feels that by including everything on the Internet, libraries will have self-imposed their own value of "free speech absolutism" upon the community. It should also be mentioned that David Burt works for the filtering software industry.

What's a Librarian to Do?

I was a bit surprised to learn that most of the public libraries in the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium in Massachusetts do not have filters on their computers. Most libraries state that the cost of installing and maintaining the filtering software far surpassed the amount of federal monies that would be forfeited. Big city libraries, such as Boston Public, however, would lose too much money if they chose not to filter. Many have sacrificed their philosophical differences in order to maintain federal funding; kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The implementation of filtering software was integral to every School Acceptable Use Policy that I viewed online. All made it quite clear in their policies, however, that filters were not infallible, and that there were no 100% guarantees that inappropriate sites could not penetrate the software.

Some librarians prefer the filtering software, stating that it relieves them of the pressure to supervise the computer use of many children at one time. Some are amenable to screening because it helps prevent potentially embarrassing situations and removes political pressure. Some feel that filtering serves as a barrier to possible criminal liability. This certainly was not the case for Julie Amero! NEWS FLASH: A sentencing date for this case has been postponed until the end of April.

Many librarians are uncomfortable with the roles that have been thrust upon them by CIPA. An investigation conducted by Jill S. Ratzan and published in the 2004 September/October issue of Public Libraries revealed that the ambiguities involved in being "protector, screen monitor, unblocker, judges of purpose and deniers of access" have left many librarians with an uneasy feeling.

What do parents and kids think?

Many critics of filtering software state that it deprives students of the opportunity to learn and develop the skills necessary to navigate and become Internet savvy responsible adults. They argue that the notion of "netiquette" and "netizenship" is never taught. Their belief is that the blocking of websites does not give children the chance to exercise the sound judgement needed when surfing the Web. It is all done for them.

Many parents and kids do not feel this way, however. Consider the following findings:

• More than 50% employ the use of filters in their own homes according to research conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
• The study further states that many parents are more watchful of their child's internet use; and do not feel that their children are as careful as they should be when surfing the net.
• The Pew Survey also revealed that approximately 10% of children avoided use of the internet because they did not feel safe online or had a bad online experience.

• A recent study by Common Sense Media, a non-partisan, non-profit media watchdog group, revealed that while 77% of parents recognize the Web as a useful learning tool, 85% feel that it is more dangerous than television, and 70% feel that it exposes there children to values that contradict there own. They also believed that it exposed their children to certain ideas prematurely.

• Two-thirds of young Americans between the age of 15-24 supported the premise of CIPA according to a sample survey sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

So....in our vigilance to protect our children, are we infringing upon their First Amendment rights? Should children possess the same First Amendment rights that adults do?

Future Legislation

• A new bill was introduced this past January which further extends the parameters of CIPA. In an attempt to negate actions of online predators, the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act would require all school libraries which receive federal funding to filter interactive social websites (such as MySpace) and chat rooms.
• A ruling striking down COPA occured on March 22, 2007. A victory for First Amendment enthusiasts, this decision permanently puts the law to rest. COPA had been in a stalemate position since 1998 and had never been enforced.
• While many states require internet use policies, two states, Utah and Virginia, have now adopted laws that require all school and public library computers to have filters or forfeit funding at the state level. The bill, like CIPA, will also allow for the disconnecting of filters if so requested by an adult. It is my prediction that many states will follow suit and develop their own versions of CIPA.
• The Internet Safety Act of 2007 was introduced in February of this year. The bill further addresses the issue of protecting children from online predators.

The Julie Amero Case

I could not release this blog without posting a comment about the much publicized Julie Amero Case. This case is jaw-dropping to say the least and brings to the forefront the enormous dilemma librarians and educators face.

Julie Amero, a substitute teacher for a seventh grade middle school class, was charged and convicted of exposing the class to pornographic sites on the Internet. It was later determined that these pop-ups were due to adware and spyware programs that were not blocked due to a lapse in the filtering software license. She could face up to 40 years in prison!

Her sentencing date has been postponed until the end of April. It is my prediction that prosecutors will set aside her conviction. In the meantime, Julie Amero's life has been turned upside down; laden with unwanted publicity as well as a huge legal financial burden.

Will this case promote the use of filtering software in order to avoid criminal liability? Or does it emphasize the fallacies of filtering software while promoting a false sense of protection for our children?

I personally believe that school teachers and media specialists alike will be ever so vigilant about the filtering of unwanted sites. A recent article in the School Library Journal describes how schools are in essence "filtering the filters" in order to prevent unwarranted access to objectionable material.