AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, : CIVIL ACTIONINC., et al. : :v. : :UNITED STATES, et al. : NO. 01-1303- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MULTNOMAH COUNTY PUBLIC : CIVIL ACTIONLIBRARY, et al. : :v. : :UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. : NO. 01-1322
Before: BECKER, Chief Circuit Judge,
FULLAM and BARTLE, District Judges.
May 31, 2002
Becker, Chief Circuit Judge
I. Preliminary StatementII. Findings of FactA. Statutory Framework1. Nature and Operation of the E-rate and LSTA Programs2. CIPAa. CIPA's Amendments to the E-rate Programb. CIPA's Amendments to the LSTA ProgramB. Identity of the Plaintiffs1. Library and Library Association Plaintiffs2. Patron and Patron Association Plaintiffs3. Web Publisher PlaintiffsC. The Internet1. Background2. The Indexable Web, the "Deep Web"; Their Size andRates of Growth and Change3. The Amount of Sexually Explicit Material on the WebD. American Public Libraries1. The Mission of Public Libraries, and TheirReference and Collection Development Practices2. The Internet in Public Librariesa. Internet Use Policies in Public Librariesb. Methods for Regulating Internet UseE. Internet Filtering Technology1. What Is Filtering Software, Who Makes It, and What Does It Do?2. The Methods that Filtering Companies Use toCompile Category Listsa. The "Harvesting" Phaseb. The "Winnowing" or Categorization Phasec. The Process for "Re-Reviewing" Web PagesAfter Their Initial Categorization3. The Inherent Tradeoff Between Overblocking andUnderblocking4. Attempts to Quantify Filtering Programs' Rates ofOver- and Underblocking5. Methods of Obtaining Examples of ErroneouslyBlocked Web Sites6. Examples of Erroneously Blocked Web Sites7. Conclusion: The Effectiveness of Filtering ProgramsIII. Analytic Framework for the Opinion: The Centrality of Doleand the Role of the Facial ChallengeIV. Level of Scrutiny Applicable to Content-based Restrictionson Internet Access in Public LibrariesA. Overview of Public Forum DoctrineB. Contours of the Relevant Forum: the Library'sCollection as a Whole or the Provision of Internet Access?C. Content-based Restrictions in Designated Public ForaD. Reasons for Applying Strict Scrutiny1. Selective Exclusion From a "Vast Democratic Forum"2. Analogy to Traditional Public ForaV. Application of Strict ScrutinyA. State Interests1. Preventing the Dissemination of Obscenity, ChildPornography, and Material Harmful to Minors2. Protecting the Unwilling Viewer3. Preventing Unlawful or Inappropriate Conduct4. SummaryB. Narrow TailoringC. Less Restrictive AlternativesD. Do CIPA's Disabling Provisions Cure the Defect?VI. Conclusion; SeverabilityFOOTNOTES
1. Preliminary Statement
This case challenges an act of Congress that makes the useof