Golden Gate University Library Home Page University Library Home Page University Library Home Page reference sources searching for information subject resources evaluating sources writing and presenting online catalog

 2+2=4

Current Developments

Search this site

Intellectual Freedom page:

The Sons of the CDA. Filtering the Internet by Law.

 

How many stakes must we drive through its heart before this monster dies?

The Communications Decency Act started out as an amendment to the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. The CDA portion of this legislation died on June 27, 1997 when the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. Like a horror movie, we will see a long run of sequels. As one incarnation dies in court, another rises in Congress.

The second try: President Clinton signed the Son of CDA into law October 21, 1998 (called the Child On-line Protection Act or COPA) and The court challenge phase appeared to have ended (on June 22, 2000) when a federal appeals court struck down COPA as uncontitutional but the Justice Dept. of the new Bush Administration appeal to the Supreme Court will take place in the Fall of 2001).

The third try in 1999 resulted in what Shakespeare called "All sound and fury, signifying nothing." The 105th Congress did not enact any of the filtering legislation proposed during this session.

The Cousin of CDA: The Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act. This act does not specify filtering internet content but its privacy provision, when mis-applied, has resulted in the loss of some free on-line services such as e-mail, chat rooms, clubs or free web page hosting.

The fourth try, CIPA "Children's Internet Protection Act": in progress, has completed the legislative phase and will no doubt soon enter the court challenge phase. Senator John McCain of Arizona introduced in the Senate, S97 January 19, 2000 to require schools and public libraries to filter the internet. On June 27, 2000 the Senate voted for McCain's S97 as an amendment to an appropriations bill (Amendment 3610 to HR4577). Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Franks and Pickering introduced HR 4600 another "Children's Internet Protection Act" in June 2000. Later in 2000 McCain formulated elements of both S97 and HR 4600 into the earlier rider on the Conference version of HR4577, the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. By Aug 7, 2000 the House-Senate Conference committee removed the amendment but the usual suspects tacked on a new one after the conference closed. Congress passed this bill on December 15, 2000. Although he objected to this amendment, President Clinton signed CIPA, HR4577, on December 21, 2000.

Evolution of the legislation:

The various incarnations of the legislation have evolved from ham-fisted criminal law that attempted to hold Internet Service Providers (ISPs such as AOL, Pacific Bell, Compuserve, etc.) responsible for the content of their subscribers to more subtle attacks on funding (the "e-rate discount" that makes internet access affordable for many low-income communities). The attempt to enact criminal laws ran into numerous practical and logical problems. Internet Service Providers had deep pockets and faced criminal prosecution. They joined with Libraries and the ACLU to defeat the first legislative attack, the CDA. The logic behind criminal sanctions on the ISPs for the content of their subscribers made as much sense as jailing the state highway departments of Oklahoma and Texas for building the roads Timothy McVeigh used to drive the bomb to Murrah Federal Building. But the later versions of this legislation attack funding which gives legislators an easier target. The latest version, CIPA, actually consitutes a small part of a large appropriations bill. Libraries suffer from under-funding already and so do not have great monetary resources with which to challenge these later versions of forced filtering. The ISPs no longer have any involvement in the legal fight since the COPA and CIPA do not apply to them.

More Information:


 

PicoSearch
  Help

 

 


Other 2+2=4 pages:

Alerts, news and current legislation, law enforcement actions

 Search this site by Keyword

 Recent idiocy

 Alternative publications.

 Specific Examples

 Privacy issues

 Web pages by subject.

The ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom list-serve archive.

Older alerts


Sons of CDA

Background

The father: the Communications Decency Act


Son of CDA: COPA Challenged in Court

The Justice Department Appealed the COPA Ruling by Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia that prevents the enforcement of this new incarnation of the Communications Decency Act. DOJ lost this appeal on June 22, 2000:
 
COPA badly wounded, leaving a blood trail. On June 22 the Federal Appeals Court in Philadelphia struck down COPA (Child Online Protection Act). The impossibility of determining "community standards" on the internet led the court to find the law unworkable. Read The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the Constituionality of COPA.
 
But: The Dept. of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft has filed a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court appealing the Federal Appeals Court's ruling. The case will now be called Ashcroft v. ACLU.
 
Although the Court dealt COPA this severe set-back, The Commission on Child Online Protection created by that legislation held hearings over the Summer of 2000

Previous Alerts:


Third try, 1999: Second Son of CDA: CIPA and CPA

Filtering Bills Summary from Tech Law Journal
This page summarizes the following bills (105th Congress):

Note: none of the above bills passed.

Fourth Sequel: CDA 2000 (CIPA enacted)

The addition of Amendment 3610 to The Conference version of HR 4577 (Labor, HHS, Education apparitions bill) constitutes a prime example of Stealth Legislation. The bill with the McCain-Santorum-Istook-Pickering Internet filtering rider passed on December 15, 2000. These provisions were erroneously presented as compromises to several Congressional Representatives and staff. The amendment constitutes an amalgamation of several members' previous filtering provisions, and not only mandates the use of Internet filters in schools and libraries, but also the monitoring of students' online activities.

Previous alerts and other incarnations of legislation:

Cousin of CDA (COPPA Children's On-line Privacy and Protection Act:
S. 2326 and HR 4667 enacted 1998, in effect 2000)

Not intended as a substitute for the COPA which required public libraries and schools to install filtering software, the Children's On-line Privacy and Protection Act demonstrates the law of unintended consequences. Since COPPA prohibits on-line service providers from gathering personal information about children without parental consent such services have difficulty determining the age of those particpating in free services such as chat, e-mail, free home pages and clubs. In addition, the Coucil of Better Business Bureau's (CBBB) Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) has published self-regulatory guidelines, based on COPPA, which include provisions for preventing children from accessing sites with "adult content." While lacking the force of law, CARU's guidelines nonetheless have already intimidated service providers into cutting off free services to children under 13 or shutting down free services altogether. CARU can solicit investigations by the Federal Trade Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing COPPA. Press statements from CARU can also embarrass companies.

 

1998 retrospective: the making of COPA

Below you can read most of the legislation that later became the CDA II or Son of CDA legislation passed in 1998 and some legislation that did not pass. For a good place to double check legislative information see the pages EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) has posted giving the text of Internet-Related Amendments to Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations Bill (S. 2260) House dropped filtering amendment (Ishtook amendment) from appropriations bill in 1999.

H.R. 3783 , Representative Mike Oxley's (R-Ohio) contribution, combines the "harmful to minors" CDA-II provisions with the protections for children's privacy contained in the "Childrens' Online Privacy Protection Act" (S. 2326) (HR 4667). The Bill passed the House on October 7, 1998. The Center for Democracy and Technology has prepared Comparison of Oxley and Coats' Bills See also Summary of CDT Executive Director Jerry Berman's Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications (9/11/98).

Senate Bill 1619 requires public institutions such as libraries to install filtering software on the web. Aside from the obvious and well documented problems with filtering (censorware) software the law effectively outsources the librarian's job and judgement to a commercial software provider. Any disputes over unjustly blocked web sites must go to such a commercial enterprise. For the first time citizens of the United States will have to petition a private business for their fist amendment rights. See also The version of the bill originally introduced in the Senate last February. An older alert about The McCain Bill S. 1619 (Son of CDA) (week of May 11,1998).

Senate Bill 1482 constitutes the revived "Communications Decency Act." In their own words: "To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes." See also The version of the bill originally introduced in the Senate last November.

H.R. 4274, the House version of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill: Its Title VI is the Child Protection Act of 1998 proposed by Rep. Istook. This provision requires public schools and libraries to install software to protect children from obscenity as a condition of receiving federal funds from any federal agency for the acquisition or operation of computers which are accessible to minors and have access to the Internet. This bill has not yet passed the floor of the House.

Ammendments to S.2260 include the CDA II, introduced by Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), and Amendment No. 3286, the Internet School Filtering Act, introduced by Senator McCain (R-AZ), to the Commerce/Justice/State spending bill (S.2260). According to the ACLU, the McCain proposal was introduced and accepted with only three Senators - Patty Murray (D-WA), Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) - on the Senate floor. Two more related amendments include Senator Christopher Dodd's (D-Conn) Amendment requiring ISPs to offer filtering (No. 3286). The Moseley-Braun "Child Predator" Amendment (no. 3285) makes illegal Publication of identifying information relating to a minor for criminal sexual purposes and contains frighteningly vague wording.

Senate House Conference committees drop the Ishtook and McCain amendments to legislation sent to the President. Thus, the legislation that consitutes Congress' second try at the CDA lacks some of the more draconic measures that would have affected libraries.

Analysis and more history

What you can do, and other Intellectual Freedom information


Read an excerpt from Al Gore's address to the Internet/Online Summit:
Focus on Children
on December 2, 1997 followed by a discussion about this speech on the ALA-OIF list. May 5, 1999 post listing the corporations that agree with Gore's censorship guidelines.


Back to 2+2=4 home page | Top of This Page


Golden Gate University Home Page | GGU - University Library Home Page

Keyword Search the Library Web pages

This page maintained by Steven Dunlap

Library web pages co-ordinated by Webster

Copyright - Golden Gate University - University Library
Updated August 21, 2001. Links checked June 28, 2001.