OIF Blog

For nearly a decade, the federal courts have addressed the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a federal law enacted by Congress in 1998 to protect minors from viewing sexually explicit materials published on the Internet. The law was intended to improve upon the Communications Decency Act (CDA), Congress’ first effort to regulate sexually explicit Internet materials, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1997.

The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) has been involved in the litigation challenging COPA since 1999, filing several amicus curiae briefs in support of the plaintiffs.

On Tuesday, July 22, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals once again upheld a federal district court’s decision to overturn COPA, stating that “COPA cannot withstand a strict scrutiny, vagueness or overbreadth analysis, and thus is unconstitutional.” It found that the law’s content-based regulations — which mandate fines and jail terms for anyone who “knowingly” posts “harmful to minors” materials to the Internet — unlawfully sweep in a broad swath of constitutionally protected speech. It further concluded that COPA is not the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s stated goal of protecting children, given that parents concerned with protecting children can use software filters that block sexually explicit Internet content without impairing adults’ ability to freely access the Internet.

The government will review the opinion and consider its next steps. It can appeal the Third Circuit’s decision to the full appeals court or to the Supreme Court.

The court’s opinion is available online.

More on the court’s decision from Wired Magazine.

Tags: Freedom to Read Foundation by Deborah Caldwell-Stone
No Comments »

View the video of Intellectual Freedom 101, a panel presented at ALA’s Annual Conference in Anaheim as part of ALA’s “Conference 101″ series of programs. The session features short talks about the history and ongoing work of OIF, IFC, IFRT, FTRF, the Merritt Fund, and other IF initiatives. Speakers include Kenton Oliver, chair of the Intellectual Freedom Committee, Doug Archer, chair of the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, Judith Platt, president of the Freedom to Read Foundation, Lucille Thomas , Senior Trustee of the Leroy C. Merritt Fund, Candace Morgan, chair of the Committee on Professional Ethics, and Martin Garnar, Merritt Fund trustee, long-time IF activist, and president of the Colorado Association of Libraries. Office for Intellectual Freedom staffers Jonathan Kelley and Deborah Caldwell-Stone contribute to the discussion.

Tags: Intellectual Freedom Issues by Jen Hammond
No Comments »

In March 2008, the Indiana legislature passed HEA 1042, a law that would have required anyone who sells material “harmful to minors” to register with the state, describe the materials deemed “harmful to minors,” and pay a $250 registration fee. The law raised immediate concerns since the registration requirement appeared to apply to individuals as well as businesses and institutions, and could arguably apply to any bookstore, library, museum, or school selling books, images, or other expressive works containing depictions or descriptions of sexual activity, including health and sex ed texts, works of literature, and fine art.

These concerns led the Freedom to Read Foundation to join several Indiana institutions and free expression organizations to challenge the constitutionality of HEA 1042. FTRF’s co-plaintiffs included two Indianapolis bookstores, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, the Indianapolis Downtown Artists and Dealers’ Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American Publishers, the Entertainment Merchants Association, the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, and the Great Lakes Booksellers Association. The lawsuit, Big Hat Books v. Prosecutors, was filed on May 7, 2008.

Last week, Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker struck down the law on the eve of its July 1 enactment, ruling that the law represented an unconstitutional burden on free expression. She noted that the law required individuals to pay a tax and obtain a permit for engaging in First Amendment protected activities, requirements expressly forbidden by the Constitution. She further noted that the law was so vague that it failed to provide any reasonable notice as to what materials required registration or who was required to register under the law, thereby allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the statute. Finally, she noted the law regulated far more speech than necessary, sweeping in lawful, non-obscene items such as romance novels, R-rated DVDs, and old Playboy magazines sold at garage or used book sales. She held that such overbreadth could chill the lawful dissemination of materials by causing individuals and institutions to pull such items from sale rather than risk prosecution under the law.

The court’s full opinion can be found at http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/AR5960O1.pdf

Tags: Freedom to Read Foundation by Deborah Caldwell-Stone
No Comments »

Here are the links to the liveblogging of Sunday’s highly provocative “Privacy Revolution” panel featuring Dan Roth, Beth Givens, and Cory Doctorow:

Jenny of the Shifted Librarian’s live blog

Kate of Loose Cannon Librarian’s live blog

Don’t forget to complete the “Privacy Revolution” survey and share your thoughts about privacy issues.

You also can check out some of the twittering that was done about the panel. (Twitter users, become a follower of privacyala to get continuing updates about ALA’s privacy efforts.)

Thanks to the speakers, bloggers, and attendees for their help in making for an excellent afternoon!

Tags: Privacy by Jonathan Kelley
No Comments »