Congress vs The Public Library

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) saw the U.S. Supreme Court rule that libraries as well as public schools are subject to the authority of U.S. Congress concerning installation of web filtering software as a result of receiving E-Rate discounts. These discounts are part of federal funding. Any public school or library receiving such funds must install this type of software. The ruling demonstrated installation of such filtering software is not unconstitutional as it does not violate the First Amendment.

This ruling provided the groundwork for the Children's Internet Protection Act to take full effect. In 2000, Congress passed the CIPA or the Children's Internet Protect Act. This law served as the main issue for the 2003 case. In order for public libraries to qualify for and receive federal aid for internet access, they must install web filtering software. The software disabled access to pornographic/obscene images including other material deemed potentially dangerous for minors. The law was not met with acceptance.

The American Library Association along with library patrons sought to challenge the law and claimed it restricted library patrons First Amendment rights (Caristi & Davie, 2015). Library patrons felt the restriction was not something they felt they could accept so readily. The petitioner or opposing side had Solicitor General Olson argue for appellants. Others with him were Irving L. Gornstein, Jacob M. Lewis among others. Greg Abbot and several others filed on behalf of the state of Texas briefs of amici curiae to urge reversal (Middleton, Lee, & Stewart, 2016).

Among their defense was the notion that CIPA does not violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, because the public libraries receive funds directly from the federal government, they must comply with any changes in policies or rules that are part of the program or service funded. Public funds henceforth, must be spent on the purpose from which they were authorized. The respondent had Paul M. Smith argue on their behalf. Their side of the argument suggested the internet filter software created an unnecessary restriction and violation of their First Amendment rights.

They argued the library patrons did not feel it necessary and saw the law as an abrupt change that had an impact on how they used the internet. The limitation seemed to them a step towards future restrictions that may cause additional problems in the future. For example, there was no allowed discretion on which sites the software blocked. This created dissent and additional opinions from the respondent side. In my opinion the ruling was correct. The federal government funds the internet for public libraries.

While library patrons may have understandably been upset at the new restrictions, they have to understand that the internet they use at the library is free for them. Because of this, they have to accept any changes in policy. If they want internet that has no restrictions in regards to filters and blocking of certain sites, they then must pay for the internet themselves. This isn't the first time the government has tried to block internet smut.

They tried since 1996 and failed twice before, finally succeeding on the third try with the passing of the CIPA. "This was Congress' third attempt to regulate access to online smut. Three bills had been passed since 1996. The Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked enforcement of the second" (Mears, 2016). Aside from the continued pursuit of removing smut.