WARNING: SOME MATERIAL MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE. THIS STORY IS UNSUITABLE FOR CHILDREN.
WASHINGTON — In a lawsuit expected to reach the Supreme Court, two national free speech groups are challenging the Children's Internet Protection Act. The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association both claim the new legislation is censorship and violates the First Amendment.

The law, which received near unanimous support from Congress, protects children from pornography by requiring federally funded schools and libraries to install computer filters. Supporters say without this safety measure in place, public libraries and schools are fast becoming conduits for federally funded peep shows.

There's no question that the worldwide web includes a wide world of material not suitable for children. The Internet's red light district now boasts more than 12 million pages of pornography. With a simple point and click, users surfing the net can access some of the most vile obscenities imaginable.

Janet LaRue of the Family Research Council said, "This includes beastiality, torture, rape, sex with excretory functions and child pornography."

LaRue, who is a legal expert, says the deceptive practices of online porn sites make it likely that any child using a computer can access these sites by mistake. For example, a child searching toy names like Pokemon or Barbie is immediately linked to a whole host of X-rated websites.

A student doing a research project on the White House gets far more than a look at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A child doing a book report on farm animals is innocently exposed to illegal images of sex acts with animals. And once snagged inside these websites, they can often be complicated mousetraps to escape from.

Many believe the only way to keep this material away from minors is to use restricted access technology or filters. Think of it as the V-chip for computers. Just recently, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, the first law that requires filters to be installed on computers in federally funded schools and libraries.

According to LaRue, this law is desperately needed.

"You've got a virtual dirty peep show booth that is open to children and funded by tax payers," she said. “Most people are absolutely shocked when I tell them that the majority of the public libraries in this country are providing unrestricted access. They can't imagine that this is really allowed, especially for children."

These are libraries like the Martin Luther King Library, Washington, D.C.'s largest. There, librarians take a hands-off approach. Librarian Roxanna Deane says there is no Internet use policy in place because that would be censorship.

"It's almost like buying a set of encyclopedias but saying I don't like this article, this article or this article so I am going to rip them out. We just wouldn't do that,” Deane said. “You buy the whole encyclopedia so you buy the whole Internet."

Even if it is obvious children or adults are viewing obscene material on library computers, it is this library's policy to look the other way.

“We can't get in the business of deciding for other people. A library is to have information for everybody and hopefully people will use the information they need," Deane said.

Now, because of the new law which takes effect in April, libraries like Martin Luther King, which receives one million government dollars annually, must either install filters or lose the federal grant.

As expected, the so-called free-speech groups are furious and are challenging the Children's Internet Protection Act in court.

"Filtering doesn't work. That's our big problem with it," claimed Emily Shetekoff who represents the American Library Association, one of the groups that filed suit. The ALA is a private interest group that has tremendous influence over library policy nationwide. Martin Luther King Library is a member.

“There is no filter that exists that will protect children from all objectionable material and there is no filter that exists that doesn't filter out constitutionally protected material. So, it doesn't work either way," Shetekoff said.

And, while it is true that no filtering technology is 100% effective, many companies have made dramatic improvements through the years. In the event a legitimate website is blocked, it can essentially be unblocked.

Nonetheless, the ALA and the American Civil Liberties Union argue in their lawsuits that the Children's Internet Protection Act violates the First Amendment.

Congressman Ernest Istook, co-author of the legislation says that is ridiculous.

“It's not restricting free speech, it's restricting government spending. You or I or other taxpayers have no obligation to pay for filth or pornography to be placed in front of our kids," Istook said.

A disturbing new report published by the Family Research Council outlines just how prevalent pornography is in the nation's libraries. According to "Dangerous Access," the total number of incidents involving pornography each year is likely to be between 400,000 and two million.

The report documents cases from library incident reports including:

Children and adults accessing pornography, intentionally and by mistake;
Adults, including convicted pedophiles, operating child pornography rings using library computers;
Adults intentionally exposing children to harmful material, and teaching them how to access obscene websites;
Indecent exposure and lewd behavior by male patrons while viewing sexually explicit material;
And attempted child molestation.
As a Phoenix Police report documents, a 13-year-old boy who had been viewing pornography on a daily basis at the local library offered a four-year-old a quarter for sex in the library bathroom. When asked by police why he did this, the 13-year-old said he had been playing truth or dare in an Internet chat room using the library's computer.

In light of the pending lawsuits, supporters of the law gathered on Capitol Hill last week to stress the importance of "porn-free" public places.

Internet safety advocate Donna Rice Hughes said, "Any child with unrestricted Internet access is in danger of being exposed to pornography and sexual predators."

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America said, "The ALA and the ACLU are accomplices of the worst kind of criminals by trying to undo the Children's Internet Protection Act."

The American Center for Law and Justice has promised to fight for Internet protection for children and has said it will meet the legal challenge of the ACLU.

Congressman Istook added that it will be difficult to undo the law because it was carefully crafted to withstand the scrutiny of the courts. Both sides, however, expect to battle the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. © 2001