The document discusses the history and key aspects of internet decency legislation in the United States from 1996-2004. It covers laws like the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Child Online Protection Act of 1998, and Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000. These attempted to restrict minors' access to indecent or obscene material online but faced legal challenges over free speech concerns. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the CDA and COPA, while upholding filtering requirements under CIPA for schools/libraries receiving federal funds.

1. Internet Decency Legislation
Terrance Garmon

2. 1996
1995 2000 2005 2010

3. Telecommunication Act of 1996
• Primary Purpose: to reduce regulation and encourage
the “rapid deployment of new telecommunication
technologies.”
• Originally for Telephone, T.V. and Radio
• Internet started to become more popular
• Congress saw potential of Internet as a medium for
educational and political discourse, and as a result
wanted to enact legislation that would promote the
development of the internet
• Congress also saw how easy it was for users to access
sexually explicit sites without knowing the user‟s age
• As a result, title V of the Act was created to address
decency on the internet

4. The Communications Decency Act
of 1996 (CDA)
• The 1st notable attempt by the US Congress to regulate
pornographic material on the internet.
• Did 2 things:
• 1.) Attempted to regulate both indecency (when available to
children) and obscenity in cyberspace.
• 2.) Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that
operators of Internet services are not to be construed as
publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third
parties who use their services).

5. What Did the CDA Say?
• Passed in 1996 stating :
– the CDA imposed criminal sanctions on anyone who
• knowingly (A) uses an interactive computer service to
send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of
age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to
display in a manner available to a person under 18 years
of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal,
image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or
describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory
activities or organs.
• It further criminalized the transmission of materials that
were "obscene or indecent" to persons known to be under
18.
• Free Speech Advocates Challenged the CDA claiming it was
unconstitutional as it violated the 1st amendment.

6. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
(1997)
• ACLU argued provisions violated 1st amendment because of
vagueness
• The U.S. Supreme Court held the two provisions of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) that criminalized
providing obscene materials to minors by on the internet were
unconstitutional because:
• 1.) there was no definition of “indecent”
• 2.) patently offensive could exclude literary, artistic, political,
scientific, or educational value.
• Policy problems:
• If upheld:
• 1.) would place burden on senders/ websites to
determine whether speech is subject to regulation
• 2.) whether recipient is of min. age
• “the mere possibility that user-based Internet screening
software would „soon be widely available‟ was relevant to
their restriction of an overboard regulation.”

7. 1998
1997
1996
1995 2000 2005 2010

8. Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
• A direct response to the Reno v. ACLU decision narrowing the range of material
covered
• Was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared
purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to
such minors on the Internet.
• COPA only limits commercial speech and only affects providers based within the
U.S.
• Required all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to restrict
their sites from access by minors.
• "Material harmful to minors" was defined as material that by "contemporary
community standards" was judged to appeal to the "prurient interest" and that
showed sexual acts or nudity (including female breasts). This is a much broader
standard than obscenity.
• Law Never took effect as 3 rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction
against the law

9. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties
Union (2004)
Legislation
– Round 1= remanded back to circuit ct (1998-2002)
– Round 2= upheld injunction, likely unconstitutional (2003-2004)
• Supreme ct of Ashcroft
– It prevented online publishers from publishing some
material that adults had a right to access - and because it
did not use the least restrictive means possible to protect
children (the court found that blocking software installed
on home computers by parents would do as good a job
without preventing free speech).
– For similar reasons, the panel found that the act was
unconstitutionally "overbroad" - that is, it applied to too
much protected material.
– Round 3= permanent enjoinment of law granted and upheld on
appeal and denied review in Supreme ct, which killed the bill.
(2007-2009)

10. 1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2000
2005
2010 2004

11. Children’s Internet Protection Act
(CIPA)
What is it?
-The Children‟s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal
law enacted by Congress to address concerns about
access to offensive content over the Internet on school
and library computers.
-CIPA imposes certain types of requirements on any
school or library that receives certain types of federal
funding.
-In passing CIPA, Congress required libraries and K-12
schools using these discounts (sometimes called "E-Rate
discounts") on Internet access and internal connections to
purchase and use a "technology protection measure" on
every computer connected to the Internet.

12. What CIPA Requires
Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the federal funding unless:
1.) they certify that they have an Internet safety policy that includes
technology protection measures.
2.) The protection measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures
that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for
computers that are accessed by minors).
3.) Before adopting this Internet safety policy, schools and libraries must
provide reasonable notice and hold at least one public hearing or meeting
to address the proposal.
4.) Adopt and enforce a policy to monitor online activities of minors.
5.) required to adopt and implement an Internet safety policy addressing:
(a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b)
the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat
rooms and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c)
unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other
unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, u
se, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors;
and (e) measures restricting minors‟ access to materials harmful
to them.

13. What Else Does it Require?
• Schools and libraries are required to certify that they have their
safety policies and technology in place before receiving funding.
• CIPA does not affect funding for schools and libraries receiving
discounts only for telecommunications, such as telephone service.
• An authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure
during use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or
other lawful purposes.
• Schools and libraries that do not receive (E-Rate discounts) or only
receive discounts for telecommunication services and not for Internet
access or internal connections, do not have any obligation to filter
under CIPA.
• As of 2007 approximately one third of libraries had chosen to forego
federal E-Rate and certain types of LSTA funds so they would not be
required to filter the Internet access of their patrons and staff.

14. United States v. American Library
Association (2003)
• Challenged the Constitutionality of Act
– Argued 1.) Did not help disadvantaged schools and libraries improve
economically
– 2.) that "no filtering software successfully differentiates constitutionally
protected speech from illegal speech on the Internet.“
• Found:
– That it is not possible for a public library to comply with CIPA without
blocking a very substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech,
in violation of the First Amendment."
– Upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, the law was
upheld as constitutional as a condition imposed on institutions in
exchange for government funding
• Upheld and made it clear that the constitutionality of CIPA would be
upheld only "if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock
filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant
delay on an adult user's request."

15. 1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2000
2003
2005
2010 2004