Civil liberties, library groups challenge the latest law restricting Web access.

For the third time in five years, federal judges in Philadelphia are being asked to strike down as unconstitutional a law designed to prevent children from accessing pornography on the Internet.

In twin lawsuits, coalitions of civil liberties groups, library associations, online authors, and individuals claim that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)--which requires libraries and schools that receive federal funding to install filtering software on public computers--violates the free speech and due process rights of adult users. (American Library Ass'n v. United States, No. 01-1303 (E.D. Pa. filed Mar. 20, 2001); Multnomah County Public Library v. United States, No. 01-1322 (E.D. Pa. filed Mar. 20, 2001).)

"Any legislative endeavor that seeks to restrict the information that is available to the citizens of the United States strikes at the heart of our Constitution," said Judith Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association (ALA), the lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits. "Without information that is readily available and accessible, we cannot govern ourselves effectively. We cannot govern ourselves period," she said.

Supporters of the law say it will protect children from online smut. "Because of the policies of the American Library Association, public libraries with unrestricted Internet access are virtual peep shows open to kids and funded by taxpayers," said Janet LaRue, senior director of legal studies with the Family Research Council, in a statement released in response to the lawsuits.

The law took effect April 20, but libraries have months to comply with the filtering mandate before losing federal funds, Krug said. The first deadline is July 1, when affected libraries must begin investigating how they will protect young people from online pornography, "but they don't have to apply any devices or undertake any other specific activities until July 31, 2002."

Nevertheless, the lawsuits, which will probably be consolidated, are on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court as required by a provision in the law. They will be heard first by a panel composed of two district court judges and one appellate judge. Any appeal of that decision must be made directly to the Court.

Aside from the constitutional issues, Krug said, CIPA is flawed because Internet filters are far from effective. A recent study of filters by Consumer Reports found that 1 in 5 adult-content sites got through most filters, while many child-friendly sites were blocked.

"We are asking a mechanical device that can't make judgments and can't think to act as a flesh-and-blood person," Krug said. To illustrate, she said the "American Association of University Women was blocked by one filter. When we went in, we discovered that the filter blocks any site with `association' in its name because the word begins with a-s-s."

The American Library Association advocates allowing individual libraries to determine the best way to protect children from online smut. Many libraries have Internet-use policies designed to protect children, Krug said, that include such measures as requiring that computers be placed in high-traffic areas.

The Family Research Council's LaRue called these policies "ineffective" and analogous to closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Should the debate make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, as expected, the justices are likely to feel a sense of deja vu. In 1997, the Court ruled 7-2 that the Communications Decency Act, which made it a federal crime to transmit pornographic material to minors via the Internet, unconstitutionally restricted free speech. That decision affirmed an earlier ruling by another three-judge panel in the Philadelphia federal court. (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Reno I), 521 U.S. 844 (1997).)

Last year, the Third Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction on enforcement of another Internet censorship measure, the Child Online Protection Act. That law makes it a federal crime to communicate material considered "harmful to minors" via the Web "for commercial purposes." The U.S. Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision. (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (Reno II), 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000).)

And the Court has recently agreed to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit in a related case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In that case, the appellate court struck down, on First Amendment grounds, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which expanded the scope of federal child pornography laws to include computer-generated images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

"Drawings or images that `appear' to be minors or visual depictions that `convey' the impression that a minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct" retain First Amendment protection, the court said. (198 F.3d 1083 (1999), cert. granted, 121 S. Ct. 876 (2001).)

The CIPA lawsuits are not far behind. "We've already asked the panel to call a scheduling conference," Krug said. "And whoever appeals--and someone will--it will go to the Supreme Court."