Filtering the Internet like a Smokestack: How the Children's Internet Protection Act Suggests a New Internet Regulation Analogy

By Chrislip, Jared | The Journal of High Technology Law, July 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Filtering the Internet like a Smokestack: How the Children's Internet Protection Act Suggests a New Internet Regulation Analogy


Chrislip, Jared, The Journal of High Technology Law


I. INTRODUCTION

The development of new technologies often presents society with novel legal issues. Rarely, however, do technological innovations present problems that are wholly unique. For example, a new medium of communication used to disparage a person's reputation would likely fall under the doctrine of libel. To apply traditional, print media libel precedent to a case when the slanderous speech is electronic, the law analogizes the electronic medium to the printed page. The law's relevance in the face of new technology, therefore, relies on its use of analogies that frame unforeseen legal issues in terms of established principles.

The application of established law to the multi-faceted Internet, however, resists a single, overarching analogy. Instead, courts, lawmakers and commentators have had to employ an evolving set of metaphors in their attempts to analyze the medium. Regulation of the Internet has been promoted with the "information superhighway" metaphor, analyzed with the "cyberspace" conception and explored with the "Internet as real space" comparison. (2) The government's interest in protecting minors from harmful Internet content has even been likened to the zoning of real property, like distancing schools from adult-oriented commercial spaces. (3)

Although Internet filtering technology continues to develop and improve, filters are currently unable to analyze the content of images on the Internet. (4) The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), (5) however, is based on a policy that requires the use of Internet filters that can discern between appropriate and inappropriate Internet images. (6) The statute's apparent technological infeasibility raises unresolved questions regarding the interpretation and application of CIPA's Internet filtering provisions.

Although no single metaphor is sufficient for analogizing the myriad legal issues presented by the Internet, CIPA necessitates an appropriate analogy to address the statute's unresolved regulatory concerns. (7) Fortunately, environmental law has encountered and resolved analogous technological infeasibility issues. (8) In bridging the gap between current regulatory aspirations and potentially available technological tools, environmental law has established a vocabulary of statutory construction and interpretation that forces technology to develop in order to accomplish forward-looking regulatory goals. (9) Reading CIPA as a technology-forcing goal statute like the Clean Air Act (CAA) (10) explains how the apparently infeasible Internet filter statute may be interpreted and applied in the face of technological limitations.

After reviewing free speech concerns and Congress' interest in protecting minors from harmful Internet content, this note will summarize the history of Congress' efforts to regulate online pornography. The paper will then describe current Internet filtering technology and compare CIPA to the CAA. Borrowing from environmental principles such as the "best available technology" standard, this note will then suggest an approach to interpreting CIPA that resolves the law's technologically problematic positions.

II. INTERNET REGULATORY POLICY AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects both the expression and the receipt of information. (11) In United States v. Am. Library Ass'n, (12) the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether CIPA, a congressional act that conditions the receipt of public library Internet subsidies on the library's use of filtering software, violates the First Amendment. (13) Upholding the Act, the Court held that, at least facially, it does not violate First Amendment rights. (14) The Act's mandate to employ a "technology protection measure" capable of blocking access to obscene images is, however, virtually impossible to comply with.

That the First Amendment does not cover all speech is well established.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Filtering the Internet like a Smokestack: How the Children's Internet Protection Act Suggests a New Internet Regulation Analogy
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?