News

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2002 (LSN.ca) – A three-judge panel for the federal district court in Philadelphia issued its ruling today holding that the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is unconstitutional. CIPA requires public schools (K-12th grade) and public libraries, that accept certain federal subsidies for Internet access, to use blocking technology on any of its computers with Internet access. The purpose is to protect against user access to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and material harmful to minors when a minor is using a computer. It permits a library official to disable the technology during use by an adult for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.  “Congress enacted the (CIPA) so that federal tax dollars wouldn’t be used to turn libraries into dirty peep shows open to kids. Across America public libraries that provide unfiltered Internet access and rely on acceptable use policies are experiencing numerous incidents of patrons, including children, accessing hard-core and child pornography, adults exposing children to pornography, and patrons engaging in indecent exposure and sexual assaults,” stated Jan LaRue, chief counsel at Concerned Women for America.  LaRue filed an amicus brief in support of the CIPA, and is confident that the Supreme Court will reverse the lower court.  A new study on teen Internet use by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that among all 15-24 year-olds: Two-thirds (67 percent) support requiring Internet filters at schools and libraries; two-thirds (65 percent) say being exposed to online porn could have a serious impact on those under 18; and a majority (59 percent) think seeing Internet pornography encourages young people to have sex. “Even kids get it – it makes you wonder who ought to be holding a gavel,” LaRue added.  See the AP coverage:  https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020531/ap_on_hi_te/internet_filtering_10

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.