The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) imposes filtering on public and school libraries that accept federal e-rate funding. Without the e-rate subsidy some libraries would be hard pressed or even unable to offer their users Internet access. The downside is that the filters they have to choose among are all flawed. On the surface it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2003 decision upholding CIPA was a loss for the American Library Association. That, however, reduces the nuance of interpretation of law to the unambiguous clarity of sports scores. The Supreme Court imposed limitations on CIPA, allowing adults to request that filters be turned off. This was the Court's balancing act, attempting to preserve adults' access to Constitutionally protected speech and to protect children. As John N. Berry III wrote in his August 15, 2003 LJ editorial, “The Supreme Court found CIPA constitutional, but to do so it rewrote that law.”

Given that the Supreme Court ostensibly upheld CIPA, I am glad it also rewrote it. I learned today form a colleague at a major urban public library that she used a filter-burdened library computer to access my ALA presidential campaign Web site. Or, she at least tried to. But the filter blocked her from it! What, I wonder, on my Web site triggered the filter? I cannot guess. I am grateful that this particular filter program in that one library is being modified to allow access to http://rettigforala.org and I hope that many of her colleagues will exercise their restored freedom to read it.