Federal judges toss out online pornography law

? Public libraries cannot be forced to use Internet filters designed to block pornography, three federal judges said Friday in overturning a new federal law.

In a 195-page decision, the judges said the Children’s Internet Protection Act went too far because the filters can also blocked access to sites that contain protected speech.

“Any public library that adheres to CIPA’s conditions will necessarily restrict patrons’ access to a substantial amount of protected speech in violation of the First Amendment,” the judges wrote.

The law would have required public libraries to install the filters or risk losing federal funding starting July 1. It had been widely criticized by First Amendment groups.

The judges, who heard nearly two weeks of testimony in April, wrote that they were concerned that library patrons who wanted to view sites blocked by filtering software might be embarrassed or lose their right to remain anonymous because they would have to ask permission to have the sites unblocked.

Any appeal of the decision by 3rd U.S. Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker and U.S. District judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union contend the law is unenforceable, unconstitutional, vague and overbroad. They say it denies poor people without home computers the same full access to information as their wealthier neighbors.

Critics of the law claim Web sites on issues such as breast cancer and homosexuality can get mistakenly categorized as porn and blocked by the filtering programs.

Justice Department lawyers argue that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines.

They also point out that libraries can turn down the federal funding if they want to provide unfiltered Web access.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act was the third anti-Internet-porn law brought before federal judges for constitutional challenges.

The 1996 Communications Decency Act made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed “harmful to minors.” The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred enforcement of that law, saying the standards were so broad and vague that the law was probably unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court partially upheld the law in May, but did not rule on its constitutionality as a whole. It remains on hold for further action in lower courts. Three federal judges on Friday threw out a federal law that would have forced public libraries to equip computers with software designed to block access to Internet pornography.

In a 195-page decision, the judges said the Children’s Internet Protection Act went too far because it is also blocking access to sites that contained protected speech.

“Any public library that adheres to CIPA’s conditions will necessarily restrict patrons access to a substantial amount of protected speech in violation of the First Amendment,” the judges wrote.

The law would have required public libraries to install the filters or risk losing federal funding starting July 1. It had been widely criticized by First-Amendment groups.

The judges, who heard nearly two weeks of testimony in April, wrote that they were concerned that library patrons who wanted to view sites blocked by filtering software might be embarrassed or lose their right to remain anonymous because they would have to ask permission to have the sites unblocked.

The filtering software blocked substantial amounts of protected speech “whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest,” the judges wrote.

Any appeal of the decision by 3rd U.S. Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker and U.S. District judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union contend the law is unenforceable, unconstitutional, vague and overbroad. They say it denies poor people without home computers the same full access to information as their wealthier neighbors.

Critics of the law claim that Web sites can get mistakenly categorized as porn by mistake-prone filtering programs _ making information on breast cancer and homosexuality, for example, unavailable to library Internet surfers. They also say that the law takes an inappropriate one-size-fits-all approach that treats children and adults the same.

Justice Department lawyers defending the law argued that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines.

They also point out that libraries can simply turn down the federal funding if they want to provide unfiltered Web access.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act was the third anti-Internet-porn law brought before federal judges for constitutional challenges.

The 1996 Communications Decency Act made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed “harmful to minors.” The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred enforcement of that law, saying the standards were so broad and vague that the law was probably unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court partially upheld the law in May, but did not rule on its constitutionality as a whole. It remains on hold for further action in lower courts.