TwentySevenLetters / B

CIPA: Censored Internet for Patrons Act

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires internet access to be filtered if it’s in a place where children can see it (i.e., anywhere outside one’s home), and gives federal funds to libraries installing filters. No, it does not take funding from libraries without filters—it actually pays libraries for filtering. According to the ALA, “The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) designates federal funding for libraries that install filters on all its computers. Libraries that do not accept federal funding do not have to install filters.”

Specifically, CIPA says that libraries need to filter Internet material that is (a) obscene, as that term is defined in section 1460 of title 18, United States Code; (B) child pornography, as that term is defined in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code; or (c) harmful to minors, as defined below:

HARMFUL TO MINORS.--The term “harmful to minors” means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that--

(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

The full text of CIPA is available from the ALA’s web site. (Warning: this is a 17-page PDF, but it says the same things over and over, specifically in defining what it restricts.)

I admit that I can’t make heads or tails of a lot of the legalese that’s been written about the act, from the actual text to the court decisions surrounding it. I’m bothered by what I do know about it, and I haven’t read anything that makes it sound to me like it’s a good idea. I think the whole thing is disrespectful of a patron’s rights (the ALA guarantees the same level of access to all patrons regardless of age, among other modifiers), and I think it really limits libraries’ ability to provide informational service to patrons. The ALA doesn’t approve of it, either, and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the first amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court came down on the side of We Know Better Than You, and CIPA has been ruled constitutional.

There is a section written into the CIPA that says adults can ask that the filter be disabled, as a way of getting around the first amendment issue of censoring free speech. At our branch in particular, we can turn off the filters for our own computers or for adult patrons, but not for anyone under age 14. If information that a child needs is blocked, we’re told that we can unblock OUR computers and print it for them, but we can’t actually unblock the kids’ computers.

Not only can we not unblock the children’s computers, thanks to CIPA, we need to start carding kids to use the computers. We have to look at each kid’s library card and see if they have the sticker on it that denotes parental permission to use the internet, and with only two of us in a busy children’s room, we really have spare time to do this. On the one hand, it means that kids will actually have their library cards with them when they want to check out books, and that fewer kids will be allowed to use the computers (at least until they bring their parent with them to get the permission added). On the other hand, this means there will be lots of whining when we don’t let the kids on, when they’ve always been able to get on before, and WHY do they need to bring their card and/or their parent, etc.

Logistics aside, lots of things make me twitchy about CIPA. First off, I don’t like the term “protection,” as if the internet is a Big Bad Monster just waiting to corrupt children with one wrong click. Yes, it’s great to require parental permission, and it would be better if the parents would actually stay with their kids. But a government-sponsored “protection” plan seems like the wrong way to go about it. If anything, it seems like it would make things worse, as parents become complacent that the filters will protect their children from everything questionable. Second, I don’t like the vague “harmful to minors” thing, where everything has to have Value or Redeeming Social Importance. Entertainment isn’t good enough; every internet site a child views must have “serious value” of some sort or another. Third, if the federal government is going to bribe libraries to filter internet access, how long before they start making collection demands? Would we have to pull The Truth About Poop , or does it get a pass because it’s a more biological interest in excretion than a prurient one?

CIPA, for me, raises more questions than it answers. All I can do is wait to see how it plays out. In the meantime, though, I’m relieved to know that the Supreme Court takes such an interest in protecting children from anything that lacks serious value. It sure would be a shame if children were afforded the same rights to access information as anyone else.