Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project
CIPA Reference Dont be a FOOL; The Law is Not DIY

- 1st Amendment
- Internet Freedom
- Children, Protection
- - COPA
- - CIPA
- - - CIPA Text
- - - CIPA Reference
- - - E-Rate
- - CPPA
- - Child Porn
- - Child Porn, Reporting
- - Protect Act
- - V Chip
- - Deceptive Content
- - Sex Offenders
- - Privacy
- Filters
- - Notification
- SPAM Labels
- Taxes
- Reports
- Obscenity
- Annoy
- Good Samaritan Defense
- Notes


Text of CIPA Pub. L. No. 106-554

Legislative History

Summary and Status of S. 97. Text of S. 97

Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (proposed but not enacted, would have required blocking access to social network sites)

The Broadband Data Improvement Act Title II: Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, passed in the fall of 2008, added a new educational requirement to CIPA

Federal Action

Regulatory Proceedings

In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service - Children's Internet Protection Act


3. In this Order, we adopt rules that do the following:

Released 1/23/01 Dkt No. CC-96-45 Codified as 47 CFR 54.520.

FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT. Adopted rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to implement the Children's Internet Protection Act. (Dkt No. 96-45). Action by: Commission. Adopted: 03/30/2001 by Report &Order. (FCC No. 01-120). CCB

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1/23/01

Fed Reg Notice 1/31/01


June 2003 US Supreme Court Upholds CIPA

Note that this was a "facial challenge" to CIPA (That CIPA is unconstitutional on its face - there would be no constitutional application of the statute). This leaves room for a challenge to CIPA "as applied."
CIPA is a condition on federal funding, as opposed to a restriction on speech.
Libraries in general do not subscribe to pornography.
Adult users can disable the filters.

June 20, 2002 US DOJ Appeals District Court Decision to US Supreme Court.

May 31, 2002.  Pennsylvania District Declares CIPA Unconstitutional.   Court Decision  |  Statement of the USAC (concluding that the NCIPA still applies to libraries and must be complied with, and that CIPA still applies to schools) |

On March 20, 2001, the ACLU, the ALA, and a collection of other plaintiffs (see list of ACLU Plaintiffs) filed suit in the Federal Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania.  CIPA calls for expedited legal review.  According to Sec. 1741, any constitutional challenge to the CIPA will be heard by a 3 judge federal district court panel.  Any appeal of that decision shall be reviewable directly to the Supreme Court. CIPA Sec. 1741.  The named defendants are the United States, the Federal Communications Commission, (responsible for the e-rate program), and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

ACLU Press Release Dec 18, 2000. ALA Press Release Jan 2001

ACLU Press Release 03/20/2001 | ACLU Complaint | ALA Press Release 02/20/2001| ALA Complaint |
| Family Research Council Press Release FRC to Defend Internet Porn Filtering Bill 3/20 | Statement Sen McCain Mar 20, 2001

See ACLU Press Release Dec 18, 2000; ALA Press Release Jan 2001.

Press Release: ACLU Responds to Confusion Over Library Blocking Software Law; Seeks December Trial Date in Legal Challenge  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, May 17, 2001
ALA Letter of April 18, 2001
ALA Letter of May 18, 2001. Clarifying compliance and deadlines.
May 14 Letter from USDOJ
May 16 Letter from ALA Legal Counsel on CIPA E-rate Clarification and Litigation Schedule

Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. Of Trustees of Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp.2d 552 (E.D.Va. 1998), in which that library's use of Internet filtering software was declared unconstitutional



Jan 1, 1999 Sen. McCain Introduced CIPA to the US Senate
Dec 21, 2000 CIPA signed into law by President Clinton
Feb 15 2001 FCC NPRM Comments Due
Feb 22 2001 FCC NPRM Reply Comments Due
April 20, 2001 Deadline for FCC to issue CIPA regulations.
CIPA goes into effect.
May 15, 2001 Court Conference
May 28, 2001 ALA / ACLU discovery plan due to government counsel
June 8, 2001 Government's Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss due
June 15, 2001 Government counsel response to proposed discovery plan due
June 26, 2001 Discovery conference before court (parties must confer prior to conference)
June 29, 2001 ALA / ACLU response due to Motion to Dismiss
July 13, 2001 Government reply due to Motion to Dismiss
July 23, 2001 Oral Argument before Court on Motion to Dismiss
March 25, 2002 Court Date for litigation (See Court Order)
June 25, 2002 Deadline for NTIA to initiate a notice and comment proceeding for purposes of evaluating whether currently available technology protection measures adequately address the needs of educational institutions.  Sec. 1703.



ACLU Calls for 'Reality Check,' s Another Internet Censorship Bill Is Introduced 3/99
Senators introduce Children's Internet Protection Act Freedom Forum 1/26/99

© Cybertelecom ::