This is a message from CTLS-L. Selecting "Reply" will send a message to the entire list. ---------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:24 AM Subject: FW: IF Legislation (inc. CIPA) > >The attached is being sent to you for your information. OIF has >prepared this information to help clarify the distinctions among the >various pieces of legislation and legal actions in which we are invloved >and/or have a particular interest. > >WRGordon >Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:06:03 -0500 >From: "Judith Krug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "William Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Brief summaries court cases > >In the last month, the Supreme Court handed down decisions on the >constitutionality of two laws, one restricting child pornography (the >Child Pornography Prevention Act, or CPPA) and one on Internet content >(the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA). >At the same time, the American Library Association, the Freedom to Read >Foundation, and other plaintiffs were in court challenging the >constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). >Because there has been some confusion about these laws and the legal >actions challenging them, OIF has prepared a brief summary >distinguishing them: > >Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Child Pornography Prevention Act) > >The Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) expanded the definition of >child pornography. CPPA criminalized the creation of what is called >"virtual child pornography," or "morphed" child pornography. >Under CPPA images that appear to depict children but do not, including >images of youthful-looking adults or images that are computer-generated >would be illegal. > >The Free Speech Coalition filed a lawsuit to overturn these provisions >of the CPPA on the grounds that the restrictions violated the First >Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Free Speech >Coalition, and in a decision handed down on April 16, 2002, found these >parts of the CPPA unconstitutional on two grounds: > >First, the law, as written, is overbroad, prohibiting otherwise legal, >non-obscene images depicting teenagers engaging in sexual activity, such >as filmed depictions of Romeo and Juliet or Lolita. > >Second, the prohibition on child pornography is based on the link >between the creation of the image and the sexual abuse of the children >shown in the image. If an image is created by use of computer >technology or by photographing adults pretending to be children, there >is no basis in the law to ban the image. > >The Child Pornography Prevention Act affected only those who create >films and images. It did not affect libraries. The Freedom to Read >Foundation, however, joined an amicus curae (friend of the court) brief >in support of certain First Amendment arguments. > >Ashcroft v. ACLU (Child Online Protection Act) > >Congress passed The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to replace the >Communications Decency Act. (The Communications Decency Act was held >unconstitutional in a 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court in 1997.) COPA >prohibits the transmission of any material over the Internet deemed >"harmful to minors," if the communication was made for a commercial >purpose. > >The ACLU challenged COPA on behalf of a group of plaintiffs who >provided commercial content for the Internet or who received such >content. The trial court found the law unconstitutional on First >Amendment grounds. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the >law was unconstitutional, but said it was unconstitutional because of >its reliance on "contemporary community standards." This made the law >overbroad. > >The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit's decision on May 13, >2002, on very narrow grounds. The Supreme Court did not decide on the >constitutionality of COPA, finding only that COPA's reliance on >"community standards" does not by itself make the law >unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court returned the matter to >the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a fuller consideration of the >First Amendment issues raised by COPA's restrictions on Internet speech. >All nine justices agreed that the injunction preventing any enforcement >of COPA must remain in place while the lower courts further examine >COPA's constitutionality. > >Because COPA addresses only material sent over the Internet for >commercial purposes, it does not directly affect libraries. FTRF joined >an amicus curae brief in support of the parties' First Amendment >argument. > >ALA v. United States (Children's Internet Protection Act) > >The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires libraries and >schools to install filters on their Internet computers to retain federal >funding and discounts for computers and computer access. Because this >law directly affects libraries and their ability to make legal >information freely available to their patrons, the American Library >Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation filed a lawsuit to >overturn CIPA. > >The CIPA lawsuit is currently pending before the federal District Court >in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In March 2002, a trial was >held before a panel of three judges. The parties are now waiting for >the panel to issue their decision. It is likely that the losing party >will appeal the panel's decision to a higher court. Because Congress >designated CIPA as a law subject to the "fast track" provisions of >federal law, any appeal will be made directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Thanks to Belinda Boon of the Texas State Library for this information.) --------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Include in body: unsubscribe ctls-l For information on CTLS-L please visit: http://www.ctls.net/document/ctls-l.htm
