Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Upholds CIPA
TheMatt writes "The US Supreme Court today has upheld CIPA, the law that required public schools and libraries to put internet filters on computers or lose federal funding. Quote: 'The court in a 5-4 decision ruled that the Children's Internet Protection Act does not violate the First Amendment, but that filters sometimes, do block informational Web sites.'"
The decision will be posted on the US Supreme Court website later today. The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361. We had covered this story before.
A huge problem with the law is that filters which don't tell you they're filtering are OK: if you're using a reasonably clever Google-filter, for example, you may never know that information has been filtered.
Additionally, many methods of filtering infringe the copyrights of the original authors, or may if the MPAA lawsuit against the DVD bowdlerizers succeeds.
Funny that we may have to hope for the MPAA to make filtering harder.
-- Brian T. Sniffen
Does anyone know if there are any requirements as far as software, or if certain vendors are "certified" as being good enough?
This argument has been around for a long time, and I don't think it's a bad idea to require a filter, I just think there needs to be a better filter out there before this should be legally enforced...
Something clever...
And buy shares in anybody producing internet filters - they've just gotten the Golden Ticket!
First they've got a huge market that must, by law, use their product. Second, that product is painfully inadequate to perform the job it's asked to - hence a nice long development-release-fix cycle that should go on for years, fully funded via government mandate.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Provided teachers have block/unblock per site capabilities, what is the problem. I understand that some sites get blocked that aren't pornographic, but so what. School is for education, and so during school/study hours having game sites blocked also is appropriate.
But that is just my opionion, I could be wrong...
Wait a tic, aren't low scores on tests a problem.
I say block everything, and have the teacher unblock the relevant sites automagically by time/date. Programming a lesson plan into the blocker/unblocker sounds like a good plan to me.
And preventing pedophiles from downloading porn at the library is a good plan too.
Most libraries already have procedures for logging on and can therefore check age/parental permissions per "account" What is the big deal.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
There are all kinds of legitimate uses that are being stopped though this software because it is far from perfect. I can only hope that the Supreme Court doesn't continue with this apparent precedent for saving a few at the expense of many others. After all, how long of a jump is it from this to, say, imprisoning anyone who could be a terrorist, based on demographics? Sure, a lot of innocent folks would be robbed of their rights, but, hey, we've stopped a couple of terrorists from causing trouble. Things are better, right?
If they don't trust their child (or have anought faith in them), then they shouldn't be unsupervised on the internet in the 1st place.
UPS Sucks
What is upsetting is that there has already been serious opposition to this law from librarians themselves -- who have argued that the filters block too many useful sites (and I imagine that they have indeed produced lists in support of their claims).
It would be intersting to know who has been pushing for the ruling. Was it "concerned citizens" or companies that make filtering programmes?
Perhaps libraries could issue smart cards that have personalized filter settings built in so you can sit at the computer, plug in your card, and the settings would just work without having to ask a librarian for help.
Of course, you would have to assure users that their browsing wasn't being correlated with their id.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Schools and Libraries are government funded, so there shouldn't be any reason why they aren't filtering this stuff. If people really want to look at their porn, they can do it at home. The internet is a great medium, but with it comes the bad, and a good deal of it is senseless porn popups and redirects that people have no control over. I would not want any kid to have to see something like goatse pop up on them and literally scar them for life. It's just not worth it. Yes, legit sites do get blocked, but that can be taken care of on a site to site basis.
How about just setting up a "kids section," With filters on those computers?
:/
The computer lab should be "policed" by the librarians anyways. Wandering around, leaning over people shoulders. Making sure thomas q pervert isnt masturbating in the library. If he is, call the cops and have him dragged off.
I mean, its one thing to look at breast cancer treatment sites and another to look at big-tittied-lassies.com Wouldnt just seperating the sections be a perfectly fine solution? The kids could just ask the librarians for help if they reach a blocked site.
Normally I would rage against something like this. But if you read the article, the supreme court's decision was based on the fact that librarians can shut off the blocker on request. As long as they dont ask "why?" it should be okay.
Still.. It makes it difficult for people to do research on private topics
I am conflicted.
no
I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is wrong (I haven't read the opinion yet), but the whole idea of making the filters switchable seems unlikely to be implemented. The filters will be on 100% and that will be that.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Is it really such a BAD thing to put filters on a library computer accessible by kids? I hate them as much as the next guy, but doesn't a publicly funded institution have a responsibility to protect children from offensive and degrading material? Perhaps they should just have filters on the computers in the kids section and leave the others clean.
There should be open sourcedfilters. That way it is totally explict what is being filtered and how. There can be no conflict of interest or abuse. As an added bonus public schools and libraries wouldn't have to absorb the financial impact of purchasing a filtering product.
I agree they should block Pr0n in schools. (I mean, what's the point anyway; kids fapping under the desks (not that I haven't seen that)) Personal e-mail, perhaps. Kids supposed to be doing research or in computer / programming class waste time on that stuff instead of paying attention. Either it should be policed better by teachers or perhaps in fact blocked. Entertainment (video trailers, games, etc) the same thing.
But political sites and "hate sites" I honestly don't think should fall under this same policy. At my place of employment, much like school's filtered i-net, Rush's streaming conservative talk show is blocked. But NPR isn't. You can't read the drudge report (in the high school I graduated from two years ago) but you can read the NYT. Something's wrong when political and "hate" reasons (IE anti-gay... I mean, that's a political choice! that's like blocking atheist sites (which they do!) but not blocking catholics-r-us.com (wonder if that exists)) are chosen by the blocking company as to which are acceptable and which aren't. And that's where blocking sites no longer protects but censors. Only blocks certain opinions. What if (I don't) I feel that pro gay sites are as if not more offensive than anti-gay sites?
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
This point has been made before but I feel the need to re-iterate....
.
:-)
The children of today are what are going to lead the world tommorow. Makes sense. They shouldn't be prohibited from seeing all sorts of diverse stuff including the negative.
It's like inbreeding. If you don't have enough diversity you end up getting weird illnesses and the species dies off. Same thing. If we all think the same way and band counter-thoughts we're doomed
Imagine in the future if the history of slavery becomes too "upsetting" and is band. etc... etc...
Glad I'm a canadian, proud and free
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Alternatively, you could take the same amount of effort to raise money for your local library so that it can pay for its own internet access. Then it wouldn't be subject to that law.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G. K. Chesterton
Anyways after reading THIS I have lost all faith in the supreme court to actually even know what the constitution is. What is it with these people, do they not realize that the constitution is the framework for our contry and not a spare roll of toliet paper.
The constitution is for freedom and those freedoms should be expressed in all parts of the government especially our centers of education. I'm tired of these conservative views being implemented on me. You don't want your children downloading porn, how about you try being a parent and stop relying on everyone else to do it for you.
I want something to restore my faith in the system, I really do.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Odd, As a child, I always felt safe wandering around the library. So now when I have kids, I should have to follow them around to make certain some pervert going to goatse doesn't expose them to that horrific image. Filters at some level are a good thing. And a library should be a place where a child(8-16) should be able to go wherever and read whatever.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
> I'm for civil liberties as much as the next guy, and I agree that filters generally suck, but how hard is it really for an adult to ask another adult to turn off the filters?
Not at all. How hard is it for a minor in the library to ask for that? My tax dollars are paying to have sites on gay rights and censorship blocked.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I would only agree with this if the unfiltered machines are in a closed area. And even then, there should be some filters. no-one should be exposed to this at the library.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The problem isn't so much that it's a violation of civil rights (when a person is in public, they have a civic responsibility to behave in a certain manner anyways), as much as it's a problem that computers just aren't smart enough yet to be able to really tell the difference between, for example, a porn site and an article on breeding cats for profit. This isn't because of bad filters, it's because computers are too dumb to do any thinking on their own.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The supreme court overturns its decisions all the time. This is why anti-abortion people try to get them to hear another roe vs. wade type case all the time, to see if they'll overturn that decision.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Right. Mine too, and I don't support the law. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The question was whether this was an inappropriate limit to adults' First Amendment rights, and the court found that it was not. Though I think the law should be repealed (not that this is likely in Red States dominated America), I agree with the majority that it is constitutional.
sulli
RTFJ.
Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court of the United States ensures that the laws passed by Congress are constitutional.
Congress can vote (with a simple majority) to strike the law, at any time, without any oversight from the SCOTUS. So -- the law isn't set in stone, and certainly doesn't require a constitutional ammendment to change.
If congress votes to change the law (not remove it entirely), and if an American challenges the revised law on constitutional grounds, and if the SCOTUS agrees to hear the new case, then hte opinion of SCOTUS will reign again.
The SCOTUS only determines if current laws passed by congress are constitutional. They do not write law. Their decisions on law are binary, and they cannot reword laws so that they adhere to the constitution. They merely stamp the law "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and send it back to Congress. Once stamped, the law is null and void.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
While I find the blocking software providers a secretive and sleazy bunch and the blocklist rather suspect, I'm not sure that this law will be all that bad.
The terminals I've seen at libraries require a card or login anyway. Since the law is aimed at kids, just issue adult/minor cards or IDs that are, by default, unrestricted or restricted. (I think that parents must sign for kids library cards anyway - minors can't sign legal documents promising to return the books - so determining who is a minor is just part of the process anyway.)
Since adult logins are never blocked there should be no issue of embarassment over requesting removal of the filter. If a kid "needs" unfiltered access he can bring his parent to log in. It's sort of like an R rated movie.
Sure, IDs or cards can be lost or stolen but they can also be deactivated. It seems that this would fulfill the requirement of the law in a nearly transparent way (of course I haven't read the actual law in detail so I could be wrong).
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
My main objection is with the companies producing the stupid-assed filters and closed/encrypted blocked sites lists. Is it feasible to think that there could be an open source blocking software? Who would maintain the list of blocked sites? Whose moral standards would such a list enforce? How would categorization be done such that, for example, you could allow non-explicit sexual content (ie, educational and health sites), and not explicit content?
In other words, is there a way to make this work somewhat well, now that the law passed the Supreme Court test?
oh, come on. who seriously thinks it's a big deal to have a filter on computers in schools?
they have every right to provide no internet access at all if they want, so why can't they limit access if they're good enough to provide it?
It's all going according to
Any librarian I ever worked with would have, in fact so long as the site was not pornographic I don't think they would object to unblocking ANY site. Most librarians are extremely learned and free to any intelligent viewpoint or outlook. Now you may run across mrs. kermudgens once in a while but I think they are in the vast minority.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Personally, I'd prefer that open source be mandated (say, squid and squidGuard), but I'd rather they be used on their merrits.
All this law does is keep these nanny software vendors alive and kicking. I'm sure they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Ideally, these filters wouldn't be required anyway. Welcome to the Nany State.
Method of processing duck feet
Basically you're saying that its ok that filter companies are underhanded losers, since after all, everyone knows every useful site in existance and can generate a list of them on demand for inclusion into the white list.
Oh wait, they dont. Thats why whitelists don't work!
I don't suppose its too much to ask of my tax dollars for government-mandated technology to not possess a bias? I fail to see how this cannot be a first amendment conflict, but I guess all the justices thought about was "wow, these filters must just block porn, so its OK, because porn isn't a free speech issue" while ignoring the fact that the filters fail at that task.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Children must understand what happens when they break the rules! If you deny them this freedom, then they will instead grow up seeking ways not to break the rules, but to change them altogether and perhaps even to overthrow the system.
I'm not paranoid or anything, it's just that I was once one of those kids, and luckily I was smart enough to find ways to change the rules without working behind the backs of the supposed authorities. Those with fewer opportunities and poorer guides, however, need to be shown the difference between right and wrong -- not shielded from wrong.
Shielding them from the atrocities of life, no matter how light they may be, only makes them incapable of handling it when they inevitably confront it at some later time.
Is this really that bad? More importantly, are any rights really being trampled on? You have the right to say and read anything you want, but that doesn't mean that the goverment has to provide the means to do it. You don't have a constitutional right to access the internet from a library. It makes sense given the mandate of a library, but there are other concerns here. The internet is full of things that would be completely inappropriate for public libraries, so they block it. The fact that other legitimate information is also blocked is too bad, but if you want to read about reproductive health, or whatever, pickup a book, or surf from home, or an internet cafe. It's not the govenment's responsibility to provide this information to you, and it is their responsibility to protect kids.
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
As a Webmaster for a library, I found that the Internet filters, and security programs installed are possibly the least effective programs I have used. If one wishes to find 'filth' then they are only a minor inconvenience. If one wishes to find legitimate information that has not yet been sterilized, then they are a firm roadblock, as there are many sources of filth, but precious few of real information. Fortunately, the library at which I work has filters installed on only two of it's computers, and these are clearly labeled. I think this solution is a very sane answer, as if a parent wishes to have their child protected, they can put them at the filtered computer, however, adults still have full access to the web. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
They don't do it "all the time". They do it rarely, and only then when there is new evidence or a changed social climate can be demonstrated. You'll notice that your own comment says that the anit-abortion people "try" to get them to hear it. They haven't heard it again because there is no new evidence to listen to.
You are assuming that these libraries and schools will be using comercial filtering software. That's the wrong way to go about it.
The law is extraordinarly lax in what it requires the institutions to install (IANAL but I have read most of CIPA.) It basically sais you must have filtering software that blocks stuff. Not all stuff, not some percentage of stuff, it just has to block stuff. SquidGuard and derivitives like Dans' Guardian are great options for these institutions. They are open, not just in the source but in the blocklists. They offer full control over the block lists, they are plain text so you can read them, edit them etc. There are places that serve out updated block lists that you can auto-update from. You have the ability to put in local files that override what comes from these servers (explicit allows and denys). It's really great and FREE in both sences of the word which is important for things like Schools and Libraries.
Comercial filters are wrong for Schools and Libraries. They absolutely shouldn't use them and it should probably be illegal for them to use anything where the block list isn't examineable. How do you know if they are filtering ideas that it is illegal to filter unless you can see what they are filtering?
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
"YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THE DEFAULT BLOCK LIST!"
In the real world, yes you do. This is simply because the goal is not to block these sites, it's not to save children from the Internet Pedophile, etc. The purpose is to show a "good faith effort" that you have tried to do that. If some good christian mommy complains to the library that their darling was exposed to witchcraft and demonology (a Harry Potter site say) and threatens to sue the library - they will be safe as long as a court decides that they made that good faith effort (the library was not negligent).
You just point to the blocking software company and tell the mommies to send the URL to them. Once you are no longer using the default block list - you are taking that respponsibility onto yourself. The library is now much more vulnerable to suits.
Same goes for corporations and their block software. They are more likely to get hit with a sexual harrasment suit (creating a hostile work environment), but the rationale is the same - don't change the default block list
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
This is tricky, because "mental harm" is ill-defined. It basically comes down to "anything that opposes the groupthink POV," for various definitions of "groupthink." For example: a site on Wicca is harmless, unless your ideas about religion dictate that *any* exposure to such religions will destroy Little Timmy's soul in a satanic conflagration.
Do you have numbers to support this?
I used to work for one of these filtering companies, and although the false positive and false negative rates were (IMO) pretty impressive, they weren't zero. And, if there are about a billion web sites out there (a conservative estimate), then a (strictly hypothetical) 0.01% false positive rate means that one million or so appropriate, acceptible web sites are being filtered. Most, if not all, web filters perform much worse than this, with false positive rates that are larger by one or two orders of magnatude.
I also know from personal experience that some of the filtered sites were embarrassing. For example: at least one U. S. Senator had their web site blocked for violent content. They mentioned gun control and assault rifles on their site, and the software decided that that made it a match.
Fair enough, but I've seen the content on the (for example) NAMBLA web page, and it isn't necessarily objectionable. I don't agree with them so much as one iota, but that's beside the point.
All this having been said, I don't trust most filters to work properly. Most of them are badly designed, poorly maintained, come with a built-in cultural agenda. (The place where I worked did its best to fix all three, which is one reason why I enjoyed working there. Sadly, it's fallen on hard times. Oh well.)
Finding God in a Dog
...is thus: RTFD (read the fucking decision).
For you and anybody else who feels like holding a First Amendment Rights parade in front of the front steps of the Supreme Court, quit preaching from the pulpit about your FA rights. They don't exist in this case.
The Supreme Court made a good decision. Maybe I can explain it to you in a way that won't make your head hurt.
Libraries are federally funded.
That means, plain and simple, that the government has every right to say, "You can have this money, if..." They Supremem Court has made it crystal clear that the government can stipulate almost anything when it comes to funding. From the court's decision:
Within broad limits, when the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173,
194 (1991)...The Government [was] not denying a benefit to anyone, but [was] instead simply insisting that public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized. Ibid
And here's the best part about it all: They aren't preventing Public Libraries from providing unfiltered content. Hell, any library has the right to have pornography on its shelf...hell, they could sponsor a midnight orgy session if they wanted to...but the government wouldn't pay for it. And since money's so important for funding, don't expect it to happen (unless Hugh Heffner decides to open his own public library).
From the decision:
CIPA does not penalize libraries that choose not to install such software, or deny them the right to provide their patrons with unfiltered Internet access. Rather, CIPA simply reflects
Congress decision not to subsidize their doing so... [A] legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.
So QUIT COMPLAINING! Your First Amendment rights are not being taken away. The First Amendment stops the government from limiting YOUR freedom of speech, not THE GOVERNMENT's freedom of speech ("Government entities do not have First Amendment rights...The First Amendment protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the government.") Feel free to log into your own internet and look at whatever the hell you want. Feel free to walk down to your privately-owned bookstore and purchase either the latest Harry Potter or some S&M erotica novel. Just understand that the government has chosen not to PROVIDE you everything that you have the right to do.
And will somebody PLEASE stop calling posts like this parent post insightful!?!
The states should all get together and collectively sign a deal that sais we won't take any money from this federal departement or any federal money that has fredom restricting requirements in it.
The basic strategy the federal government employed here was to use money to bypass the fact that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws that do these things directly. Forcing censorship on Schools and Libraries is way outside the bounds of what the federal government is allowed to do. They get arround this by not requiring states to do these things directly but by tying these things to money behing handed out. Of course, ripping money out of a state with income tax and then not giving it back unless they comply is a powerful force of extortion that states don't typically resist. It's all very sneaky and underhanded and very effective. The only way to resist would be on a national organized level. States would have to band together and refuse to accept the tainted money. The temptation would be wildly strong to go back of the agreement after it was made so the agreement would need strong teath.
It's doable but I haven't seen anyone in government lately who is good enough to get something like this done. Until that time comes, the federal government will probably keep using this carrot and stick approach that they have used for years.
In the past this tying of things to federal money has been used
to create 55 MPH speed limits, drunk drving laws and I think abortion clinic rules recently. Does anyone else know what this has been used for? I'm interested.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
I have _real_ issues with my tax money being used to puchase and utilize software that is designed to block citizens from accessing content. While this alone I might be able to stomach under very strict and specific circumstances, when you add into the mix that the lists of sites that citizens are not only restricted from the view of citizens, but it is also a _federal_crime_ for a citizen to surreptitiously attempt to glean what sites this blocking software is restricting from view.
This country was founded on the ideals of freedom and individual worth. I find it extremely distasteful that the very tools of law that were designed to help us all become all we could ever want to become are now being used to to tie about our necks the stone of faschism.
RFC2119
Yes it is, because any filter, by definition, has a bias. This is definitely not a first amendment conflict, although it may be problematic elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with free speech. Blocking sites and other censorship is not a free speech issue, as long as the censorship does not penetrate into privately-owned land. Free Speech is the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
Engineering and the Ultimate
- People with rare illnesses: pre-internet you'd be lucky if your doctor recognized the symptoms of the illness. You'd have to move from doctor to doctor, so that months or years went by before you'd find a doctor who recognized what you had. You'd almost never meet anyone else with the disease, so you'd have to recreate your 'library of information' yourself. Now you can quickly search for information centers and support groups, and you can narrow down possible causes of symptoms much faster than before.
- People with illnesses in general: before, unless you were near a research library you'd not be able to find out much about your illness on your own. Now you can quickly get access to medical journals (Medline) or to other people with the same illness to get advice or support.
- People who need to comparison shop: pre-internet, other than Consumers Report (and similar) you were on your own.
- People who want to warn about a business or practice: pre-internet it was difficult to share warnings. Even if you told your local BBB, what happened if the problem business left town / state?
The reduced asymmetry of information brought about by the internet is a qualitative improvement to people's lives.I'm sure that someone else must have noted this by now, but one of the greatest things about our system coupled with one of its worst problems for dealing with technological innovation is that the Supreme Court is our "Court of Last Appeal."
In the real world, Once the Supreme Court has ruled, a change in the law requires considerable political pressure and motion through a federal appelate court system that the administrations of the last two decades have stacked with appointees who were often picked more for their ideological reliability than for their objective jurisprudential acumen. That is, more for how likely it is believed that they would rule 'against' on cases involving issues disliked by conservatives; issues like affirmative action, privacy, worker-safety or reproductive issues.
Having travelled through that minefield, the Supreme Court would then have to collectively acknowledge that there was some new issue at stake for the Court to examine and then finally, the decision would have to overcome the ideological-stacking of the court by previous conservative administrations. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas have often worked to generate some truly hideous law IMHO, and their finding the 'protection of children,' of greater weight than publicly-available access to information from sources paid for by the tax-payer is not surprising.
In the final analysis, a successful review of the matter would all come down to a question of how small the issue was as a hotspot in an ideologically polarized judicial branch where a partnership between wealth, religion and the desire for social inertia in the face of social change have worked together to produce a court capable of making, um, uh... counterintuitive rulings on important issues.
All things considered, don't hold your breath and hope the border to Canada stays open for as long as possible.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
>Why not voluntarilly move to a .xxx tld?
.kids TLD. Not exactly a smashing success. I would fully disagree with moving anything with nakedness to a .xxx TLD. The question of "what is porn" would be simply be too much for everyone to handle and some hamfisted legislation would make sure anything involving any show of skin short of wearing a burka would be in that domain. Sorry, but once .xxx is created it will be abused by the censorship contingent in the US.
This has been done with the
>we can't afford to hire 'extra' Librarians to monitor what's going on
You don't have to. An occasional walk-by to see what's going on is all it takes. We don't need a technological solution to a social problem. Once someone lose privledges to use the internet because of using those computers to view obvious porno sites then the chilling affect would more or less help control human behavoir.
Look at how well "be quiet in the library" signs work. Most simply obey the sign at face value, knowing they could be kicked out for disobeying it. Once people become loud the librarian asks them to quiet down. We don't need decibal meters and special laws to take care of this. The same can be applied to the internet.
I'd much rather have someone be able to sneak in a little porno than make the internet unusable for everyone else. SCOTUS can learn a lot from saying, "It is better than 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to goto prison."
Also, I'm highly skeptical of the constitutionality of "pulling federal funding" as extortion on the part of the federal government. This is clearly, in my opinion, a check against local government that is not in the constition.
Regardless, this is a big win for the pro-censorship organizations (big religion), the big federal government people, the anti-local government people (why cant we vote on this on a state by state basis AND get federal funds), etc. SCOTUS could have simply said that this greatly threatens first amendment protections and thrown the whole thing out. Its very telling that they didn't.