1993
Commercial providers allowed to sell internet connections to individuals (History of the Internet, 2007).
1995
October--Federal Networking Council (FNC) passes a resolution defining the term Internet as: "referring to the global information system that (i) is logically lined together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or tis subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) providers, uses or communications and related infrastructure described herein (History of the Internet, 2007).
1996
February--Communications Decency Act (CDA) signed into law by President Clinton as part of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. This act stated that if anyone under 18 years of age was allowed to view "indecent" material, the provider was subject to fines up to $250,000 and/or up to two years in prison. The term "indecent" was undefined, leaving librarians at risk (Krug, 2000).
February--Two lawsuits filed challenging constitutionality of the CDA arguing:
1-In essence, that the vague, undefined and over broad usage of the term "indecent" and the idea that the government could limit adults to reading material appropriate only for children was wrong. Also, there was not a distinction of age appropriateness from a 5 to a 18 year old.
2-There are alternative ways to protect children from inappropriate material on the internet such as filters which would not violate First Amendment rights like this law did.
3-The Internet is not considered a broadcast medium like television and radio. These later mediums have had restrictions placed on them by the government due to their nature of widespread access. Therefore, the Internet deserves the same First Amendment protection as other, similar mediums like books and newspapers (Krug, 2000).
June--Lower court declares the CDA unconstitutional. The government appeals (Krug, 2000).
LSTA (Library Service and Technology Act of 1996) passed--Allowed libraries to apply for government-funded discounts on telecommunications and Internet access (Miltner, 2004).
1997
June--US Supreme Court declared the CDA unconstitutional* declaring:
1-Adults cannot be limited in their reading material to only that which is suitable for children.
2-Filters are an example of alternate means for parents to protect children at home.
3-The Internet is more like a print medium than a broadcast medium and deserves the same First Amendment protection and may deserve even MORE First Amendment protection than print medium (Krug, 2000).
*This ruling has been called "the birth certificate of the Internet" because it set the standard for all future cyberspace communication regulation. However, this ruling has continued to be challenged by local and State governments and the US Congress with content filtering being the heart of those challenges (Krug, 2000).
The Internet Filter Assessment Project (TIFAP) published--A librarian-led project to evaluate and test Internet filters in real-life situations. Conclusion: "Stop looking for the perfect choice. All choices are flawed" (Maxwell, 2001) .
1998
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) law passed in the United States (known formerly, in part, as the Communications Decency Act which was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)--Passed in response to Internet pornography and required all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to restrict their sites from access by minors (ALA, 2006).
October--Civil Liberties Union (et al) issues Federal Court Complaint challenging COPA laws (ALA, 2006).
November--Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of COPA law (ALA, 2006).
1999
June--COPA law struck down and injunction upheld by US Supreme Court finding "there is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech if the law goes into effect" (Child Online Protection Act, 2007).
2000
October--COPA Commission final report findings issued. These results from the Congressionally mandated study of the issue of alternatives to filters in all types of libraries found "no technology or method will effectively protect children from harmful material" (Maxwell, 2001) with online information resources and family education programs deemed the most effective and least intrusive way to manage concerns over objectionable material (Intellectual Freedom Issues, 2006).
December--Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Neighborhood Children's Internet Protection Act (NCIPA)* signed into law by President Clinton (Children's Internet Protection Act, 2006).
*For clarification...CIPA compliance is required when using funds for particular purposes from three federal programs: E-rate, ESEA Title II D, and LSTA. When a school or library receives discounts form the E-rate program and either or both of the other programs, its CIPA requirements take precedence over the requirements in the ESEA or LSAT programs. A related act known as the NCIPA focuses on what has to be included in a school or library's Internet safety policy (CPPA, COPA, CIPA: Which One Is Which?, 2006).
2001
April--CIPA and NCIPA laws go into effect (Miltner, 2004)
April--CIPA challenged by EPIC, ACLU and the American Library Association on privacy and First Amendment grounds.
2002
April--Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) found unconstitutional. This act only affected those who created films and images, not libraries. However, it speaks to First Amendment rights and skirts the content issues for Internet filtering (ALA, 2006).
May--CIPA unanimously ruled invalid (in their opinion) by 3-judge panel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the First Amendment. This did not change the requirement by NCIPA for public libraries requesting E-rate discounts. Schools must still meet CIPA filtering requirements (ALA, 2006).
May--"Youth, Pornography and the Internet" report published by the National Research Council (commissioned by Congress) (Intellectual Freedom Issues, 2006)
May--US Supreme Court overturns the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding COPA stating that the reliance on "community standards" does not by itself make the law unconstitutional. Supreme Court returned the matter to the Third Circuit Court for review, removing enforcement of COPA until the acts constitutionality was determined (Miltner, 2004). COPA does not directly affect libraries as it only addresses material sent over the Internet for commercial purposes (ALA, 2006). However, it again, addresses First Amendment rights related directly to content filtering.
July--Deadline for libraries receiving '02 E-rate discounts for Internet access or internal connections to comply with NCIPA (Intellectual Freedom Issues, 2006).
2003
March--Third Circuit Court strikes down COPA law as unconstitutional finding it hinders adults free speech protection. The government seeks review by the Supreme Court (Child Online Protection Act, 2007).
June--US Supreme Court upholds CIPA, reversing the lower court decision stating the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from forcing public libraries to use restrictive methods (filtering) to limit what patrons and staff can access online with their computers (Children's Internet Protection Act, 2006).
July--Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order that updated regulations pertaining to CIPA for libraries stating that each library must have an Internet safety policy in place by July 1, 2004, utilizing the following:
1-Use of a technology protection measure such as filtering or blocking software.
2-Installation of such software on every library computer.
3-A procedure for unblocking the filter when requested by an adult (Ayre, 2004).
2004
June--Supreme Court upholds the injunction on enforcement for COPA stating the law was likely unconstitutional and referred the case back to the district court for trial (Child Online Protection Act, 2007).
2006
June--Internet Filters: A public policy report released by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law Free Expression Policy Project. Provides a survey of tests and studies of Internet filtering products from mid-1990's through 2006 (The Free Expression Policy Project, 2006)
2007
March--US District Court judge finds COPA law violates First And Fifth Amendments, issuing an order permanently enjoining the government from enforcing COPA. The government again appeals and the case goes back to the Third Circuit Court (Child Online Protection Act, 2007).
References
Ayre, L.B. (2004). Filtering and Filtering Software. Library Technology Reports. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from http://www.techsource.ala.org/ltr/filtering_and_filter_software.html
Ayre, L.B. (2004). History and Development of Filters. Library Technology Reports. 4(2), 8-25.
Child Online Protection Act. (2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_Online_Protection_Act&oldid=167789103
CPPA, COPA, CIPA: Which One Is Which? (2006). American Library Association. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/cppacopacipa.htm
History of the Internet. (2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Internet&oldid=167986720
Intellectual Freedom Issues. (2006). American Library Association. Retrieved October 25, 2007 fromhttp://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifissues&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=47733&CFID=96011194&CFTOKEN=39896600
Internet Filters, A Public Policy Report. (2006). The Free Expression Policy Project. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2intro.html
Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C., & McClure, C.R. (2004). The Effects of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in Public Libraries and Its Implications for Research: A Statistical, Policy, and Legal Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1131-1139.
Krug, J.F. (2000). Internet and Filtering in Libraries: The American Experience. IFLA Journal, 26, 284-287.
Maxwell, N.K. (2001). Alternatives to Filters (library options for Internet users). Library Technology Reports, 37.2, 1-47
Miltner, K.A. (2004). Discriminatory Filtering: CIPA's Effect on Our Nation's Youth and Why the Supreme Court Erred in Upholding the Constitutionality of The Children's Internet Protection Act. Federal Communications Law Journal, 57, 555-578.