The Children's Internet Protection Act ( CIPA ) requires that K-12 schools and libraries in the United States use Internet filters and apply other measures to protect children from online content which is dangerous as a condition for federal funding. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000, and was found to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.
Video Children's Internet Protection Act
​​â € <â €
CIPA is one of a number of bills proposed by the United States Congress to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online. The two previous attempts by Congress to restrict indecent internet content, the Communications Decision Act and the Online Child Protection Act, are deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court on the basis of the First Amendment.
CIPA represents a change in strategy by Congress. Although the federal government does not have the means to directly control local school boards and libraries, many schools and libraries are taking advantage of Universal Services Fund (USF) discounts derived from universal service fees paid by users to purchase telecommunication services and eligible Internet access. In passing CIPA, Congress requires libraries and K-12 schools to use this E-Rate discount on Internet access and internal connections to purchase and use "technology protection measures" on any computer connected to the Internet. This condition also applies to a small grant authorized through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). CIPA does not provide additional funds for the purchase of "technology protection".
Maps Children's Internet Protection Act
Stipulations
CIPA requires schools and K-12 libraries to use E-Rate discounts to operate "a technological safeguard in respect of any computer with Internet access that protects against access to the computers to inappropriate visual depictions, child pornography, or harm for minors ". Such technological protection measures shall be used "during such computer use by minors". The law also states that schools or libraries "may disable the appropriate technological safeguard measures, as long as they are used by adults, to allow access to bona fide research or other legitimate purposes". Schools and libraries that do not receive E-Rate discounts or only receive discounts for telecommunications services and not for Internet access or internal connections, have no obligation to filter under CIPA. As of 2007, about one-third of libraries have chosen to issue federal E-Rate and certain types of LSTA funds so they will not be required to screen.
This action has some requirements for institutions to meet before they can receive government funds. Libraries and schools should "provide reasonable public notice and conduct at least one public hearing or meeting to address the proposed Internet security policy" ( 47 USCÃ,§§ 254 (1) (B) ) as added by CIPA sec. 1732).
The policies proposed at this meeting should address:
- Steps to restrict the access of minors to inappropriate or dangerous materials on the Internet
- The security and safety of minors using chat rooms, email, instant messages, or other types of online communication
- Unauthorized minor information disclosure
- Unauthorized access such as hacking by minors
CIPA requires schools to monitor the Internet usage of minors, but does not require library tracking. All Internet access, even by adults, should be screened, although screening requirements may become less stringent for adults (filtering for obscene and pornographic material but not "dangerous for other minors"). Content
to be filtered
The following content must be filtered or blocked:
- Obscenity as defined by Miller v. California (1973)
- Child pornography as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2256
- Harmful to minors
Some of the terms mentioned in this law, such as "inappropriate material" and what are "harmful to minors," are described in law. Under the Environmental Law ( 47 U.S.C.Ã,§à ¢ â,¬ (l) (2) as added by CIPA sec. 1732), the definition of "objectionable" is determined locally:
Determination of Local Content - the determination of what is inappropriate for minors should be made by the school board, local education office, library or other United States authority responsible for making decisions. There is no government agency or tool that can - (a) establish criteria for making such determination; (b) a review of agency assignments made by certifying schools, school boards, local education offices, libraries, or other authorities; or (c) consider the criteria used by the certification school, school board, educational institution, library, or other authority in the administration of 47 USCÃ,§ 254 (h) (1) (B) subsections.
CIPA defines "harmful to minors" as:
Any images, images, graphic image files, or other visual depictions that are (i) taken entirely and with respect to minors, attract scout interests in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) describe, describe, or represent, in a clearly offensive manner concerning what is appropriate for minors, concrete or simulated sexual or sexual conduct, simulated normal or perverse sexual acts, or obscene exhibits of the instrument sex; and (iii) taken as a whole, has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
As mentioned above, there are exceptions to "bona fide research". Agencies may disable filters for adults in pursuit of bona fide research or other types of legitimate purposes. However, the law does not provide a definition for "bona fide research". However, in a later decision the US Supreme Court said that the library would be obliged to adopt an Internet use policy that provides for unblocking the Internet for adult users, without the requirement that the library ask the user's reason for disabling the filter. Judge Rehnquist declared "[a] to mention that such false blocking presents constitutional difficulties, such problems are eliminated by the ease of patrons that may cause filtering software to be disabled." When a patron encounters a blocked site, need to ask a librarian to unblock, or (at least in case of an adult) disable filters ". This effectively puts a decision on what constitutes "bona fide research" in the hands of adults who request that their filters be disabled. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) then orders CIPA compliant libraries to apply procedures to unblock filters on request by adults.
Other filtered content includes sites that contain "inappropriate language", "blog", or are considered "tasteless". This can be somewhat limiting in research for some students, because the resources they want to use may not be allowed by a vague filter explanation of why the page is banned. For example, if someone tries to access the "March 4" page, and "Internet Sensor" on the English Wikipedia, the filter will immediately turn it off, claiming the page contains "Extreme Languages".
Conforming to the CIPA Constitution
On January 17, 2001, the American Library Association (ALA) voted to challenge CIPA, arguing that the law requires libraries to unconstitutionally block access to constitutional protected information on the Internet. It is demanded first, because CIPA enforcement mechanisms involve the removal of federal funds intended to help disadvantaged facilities, "CIPA is contrary to federal efforts to close the digital divide for all Americans". Secondly, he argues that "there is no filtering software that successfully distinguishes constitution-protected speech from illegal conversations on the Internet".
Working with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ALA successfully challenged the law before three US District Court panel judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In a 200-page decision, the judges wrote that "given the limitations of filtering technology and the existence of less stringent alternatives [including making optional filtering software or directly monitoring users], we conclude that it is not possible for public libraries to comply with CIPA without blocking large numbers constitution-protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment ". 201 F.Supp.2d 401, 490 (2002).
After appealing to the US Supreme Court, however, the law is enforced as constitutional as a condition imposed on institutions in exchange for government funding. In upholding the law, the Supreme Court, adopting the interpretation requested by the US Attorney General's argument, explains that the constitutionality of CIPA will be enforced only "if, as represented by the Government, the librarian will unblock the filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without delay significant at the request of an adult user ".
In Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, joining Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, Judge Antonin Scalia, and Judge Clarence Thomas, concluded two points. First, "Since public libraries using Internet filtering software do not infringe on their customers' First Amendment rights, CIPA does not cause libraries to violate the Constitution, and is a valid exercise of the power of Congress spending." The argument is that, because of the abundance of information available online and how quickly the changes, libraries can not separate individual items for exclusion, and blocking entire websites can often lead to the exclusion of valuable information. Therefore, it makes sense for public libraries to restrict access to certain content categories. Secondly, "CIPA does not impose unconstitutional conditions on libraries that accept E-Rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition of acceptance, to surrender their First Amendment right to grant public access to constitutionally protected speeches". The argument is that, the government can offer public funds to help institutions fulfill their roles, as in the case of libraries that provide access to information. The Judges quoted Rust v. Sullivan (1991) as a precedent to show how the Court has approved the use of government funds within certain limits to facilitate a program. In addition, since public libraries have traditionally not included pornographic material in their book collections, courts may uphold laws that impose the same restrictions on online texts.
As noted above, the text of a legal institution authorized to disable the filter on request "for bona fide research or other legitimate purposes", implies that an adult will be expected to justify his request. But under the interpretation requested by the Public Defenders and adopted by the Supreme Court, the library will be required to adopt an Internet use policy that provides for unblocking the Internet for adult users, without the requirement that the library ask the user reasons to disable the filter.
Rules after CIPA
Attempts to expand CIPA to include the "social networking" website were considered by the US Congress in 2006. See Removing the Online Predator Act. More efforts have been made recently by the International Technology Society in Education (ISTE) and the Consortium for School Networks (CoSN) urging Congress to update the CIPA provisions in the hope of organizing, not eliminating, student access to social networks and chat rooms. Neither ISTE nor CoSN want to ban this online communications outlet completely, because they believe that "the Internet contains valuable content, collaboration and communication opportunities that can and materially contribute to student academic growth and preparation for the workforce."
See also
- Content control software
- Internet censorship
- The King's English v. Shurtleff
- State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero
- Think about children
References
External links
- Text of Children's Internet Protection Act
Legal history
- ALL COLA litigation history page.
- ALA v. US, Opinion of US District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 31, 2002
- US v. ALA, US Supreme Court Opinion, June 23, 2003
Information and FCC rules
- FCC Order 03-188 dated July 23, 2003, adopted measures to ensure that the FCC implementation of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is in accordance with the latest decision of the United States Supreme Court.
- FCC Consumer Facts: CIPA.
- Universal Administrative Services Co. CIPA page.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments