The Children's Internet Protection Act states that any institution that refuses to comply be denied federal funding. The act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2000.
The CIPA is being contested in federal district court in a lawsuit filed in March 2001 by the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. Closing arguments in the trial occurred last week.
According to a statement released by the ALA in January 2001, the requirement violates the First Amendment. "No filtering software successfully differentiates constitutionally protected speech from illegal speech on the Internet."
Larra Clark, a spokeswoman for the ALA, said there are many flaws inherent to filtering software that prevent users from accessing legitimate information. "Filters still block 'breast cancer' searches," Clark said. "They are fundamentally over-inclusive in that they block useful information, but under-inclusive in that they let obscene things through."
But some organizations that aim to protect children from exposure to inappropriate material say they are outraged by the actions of the ALA and ACLU.
Phil Burress, chairman of Family Friendly Libraries, a grass-roots organization dedicated to protecting children from inappropriate material, said he does not think the CIPA violates the First Amendment in any way.
"We have not permitted pornography into libraries to date," he said. "Even with the development of the Internet, there's still material that we do not want in our public system. Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment."
Pat Mullin, associate university librarian for access services at UNC, said the CIPA does not legally require the University to filter information and therefore it does not do so.
Mullin also said he thinks filters are basically ineffective, as is the CIPA.
