CIPA Trial Comes to a Close

Cossie writes "As the latest major case on library/internet censorship comes to a close, CNET News has an article up summarizing the court battle over the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act). It's a decent summary of the case, including several quotes by judges commenting on the case." See our story from when the suit was filed describing the issues at stake.

Comments

Congressional Powers

[PhxBlue]

From Atty. Rupa Bhattacharyya's arguments in court: "Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."

And she's right, but probably not the way she thinks. The answer to her question is that Congress cannot use its powers in a manner that violates the Constitution--including the First Amendment.

Re:I'm stumped

[Mr.Intel]

Since when do we see ads popping up saying "Hey kiddies! Come look at naked ladies!"

They may not see popups but they may see porn-spam to web based e-mail used only in libraries. Not to mention results in search engines, and clever traps used to lure kids into chat rooms and porn sites.

Obviously judges with sense

[meckardt]

- "The law's terms, if you will, are a sham."

- "Every witness has testified that the statute can't be applied according to its own terms,"

- "What right does the government have to require this kind of filtering system?"

NOT their money

[Mr_Perl]

"Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."

It's not IT'S money it's OUR money. Amazing how often our representatives seem to lose sight of that.

Re:NOT their money

[goldspider]

Exactly, my friend, but while it would seem that you are using this point to oppose the CIPA, it can also be used to support it.

If a community decides that it wants its libraries to use filtering software, don't the citizens of that community have the right to NOT fund that library if it chooses to ignore the wishes of the community?

I've said it before and I'll say it again

[hey!]

The right to free speech is meaningless without the freedom to hear speech.

What the first amendment is really about is enabling communication that may be unpopular with government authorities.

Government authorities are always trying to get around this by taking the absurd position that the freedom to hear has nothing to do with the freedom to speak:

"There is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library," Justice Department Attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya said in a spirited defense

Of course there is no constitutional right to free public Internet access. But once it is there, it is not up to a government official to decide what kind of content is acceptable in communications between individuals. The analogy to selecting books is flawed. The government in this case must spend public funds to obtain the books, and of course should be selective. A better analogy would be a requirement that books have pages ripped out of them that might contain information that might be offensive to some people.

Re:Anyone for an analogy?

[Contact]

The obvious flaw in this analogy is that libraries (and other public bodies) are funded by the public, for the public, where slashdot is a privately run company.

If they want to use the mod system any way they like that's entirely their prerogative.