The Bush administration recently informed the U.S. Supreme Court that public libraries have the authority to restrict access to Internet pornography on their computers, just as librarians have the discretion to choose which books to include in their collections. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson argued in favor of a federal law that mandates public libraries receiving federal technology funding to install filtering software to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit websites. However, the American Library Association argues that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to enforce the use of filters, as they often block constitutionally protected speech while still allowing some pornography sites to be accessed.

Paul M. Smith, a lawyer representing the library association and other challengers of the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA), argued that the federal government should not interfere with librarians’ professional judgment through its spending power. The law primarily applies to libraries and schools that receive federal E-rate funding and other forms of federal technology funding. A federal district court in Philadelphia previously declared the law unconstitutional for public libraries, ruling that filtering software frequently hinders protected speech and violates the First Amendment rights of library visitors. Nevertheless, the law still remains in place for both public and private schools with federally subsidized Internet connections.

Although the main focus of the case United States v. American Library Association (Case No. 02-361) revolves around public libraries, some justices expressed concerns during the oral arguments about the implications of the law for schools. Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned whether the argument of public libraries creating a "designated public forum," deserving First Amendment protection, could extend to students using Internet-connected computers in schools. He asked if an elementary school would have to allow the worst possible pornography onto its campus. Mr. Smith replied that the constitutional analysis might differ when it comes to young children.

The primary argument against the law is that it goes too far in restricting the free-speech rights of adults to obtain lawful information in an attempt to protect children from sexually explicit material. According to the district court, commercial web filters often block information that is not related to pornography. For example, one filter blocked websites such as the Republican National Committee’s site, a teen-health site about sexually transmitted diseases, and a juggling site. Additionally, it is often inconvenient and stigmatizing for adults to request librarians to disable the web filters, even though it is technically possible.

While several justices seemed supportive of the federal government’s arguments, a few expressed skepticism. Justice David H. Souter voiced concern about the excessive blocking caused by the law and emphasized that public librarians have limited control over which sites are blocked, as the decision lies with the filtering software company. A decision on the case is expected to be reached by late June.