Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - LB - 1997.07.15 BURLINGAME URLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY r r Board of Trustees Agenda 4 P L JULY 15h, 1996- 4:30pm ?C LIONi 130 Park Road- Conference Room '�V A C0 r r �.d 1.15 , SUGGESTED ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER: I G C 2. ROLL CALL: 3. BILLS: City Checks: $ 55,079.36 Approval Special Fund: $ 236.61 Duncan Funds:$ .00 4. MINUTES: Approval 5. CORRESPONDENCE & COMMUNICATIONS: Information a. Advisory Status: Brown Act b. Employee Achievement Awards c. Dictionary Gift to Zimbabwe d. Legislation: ERAF Opinion e. Legislation: Assembly f. Legislation: Summary g. Letter: Mayor O'Mahony h. Memo: Reno vs ACLU i. Article: San Mateo County Times,July 1, 1997 j. PLS Web Page for Kids k. Article: San Mateo County Times,July 8, 1997 1. Librarians Guide to Cyberspace in. Librarian's Guide for Parents & Kids 6. REPORTS: a. City Librarian's Report: Escoffier b. Foundation Report: Herman 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Dedication UpdateInformation b. Internet V Discussion N. I"lri1T 8. NEW BUSINESS: a. Election of Officers ��!7js Action b. Employee Achievement Awards Committee Discussion/Action S �. ADJOURNMENT: J -.d.m Ir BURLINGAME rte" QP Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes June 17th, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER: a The meeting of June 17th, 1997 was called to order by President Herman at 4:30 pm. 2. ROLL CALL: t Trustees Present: Cannon, Dunbar, Herman & Taylor Trustees Absent: Berger Staff Present: Esther Cummings, Reference Librarian Judy Gladysz, Administrative Secretary 3. BILLS: L M/S/C (Taylor/Cannon) unanimously to approve the bills as presented. 4. MINUTES: The Minutes of the Meeting of May 20th, 1997 were approved as written and ordered filed. 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS: All correspondence was mailed in the Trustee packets. There was some discussion regarding the Legislative Bills. 6. REPORTS: a. City Librarian's Report: Trustee Dunbar was pleased to see State Librarian, Kevin Starr, would be speaking at the Library Dedication in October. Page 1 480 Primrose Road • Burlingame, CA 940104083 • (415) 342-1038 • Fax (415) 342-1948 Trustee Cannon requested a copy of the Summer Reading List. The Board expressed their appreciation to Jan Eustis, Cathy Somerton and Joan Manini for their hard work in preparing the Youth Commemorative Book. President Herman said the Library is truly blessed for having such a wonderful children's program. Trustee Cannon expressed her concern over the landscaping at Easton Drive. She said it looked so wonderful at first, and now the plants are looking dead. She said she is very upset that this happened. She suggested this be an agenda item for future Board discussion. The Board concurred. b. Foundation Report - Herman: o Foundation President Herman reported that the Board recognized that they need clerical help. She said they are still working on the major donor campaign. She reported that they will be contacting everyone who has donated $200 or more to see if they might be interested in raising their donation. c. Dedication Committee Report - Cannon: Trustee Cannon said the Dedication and Grand Opening will take place on October 4th from 11am to 4pm. An Open House with tours will be held Sunday, October 5th from fpm to 4pm. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Decorative Elements for the Terrace: M/S/C (Cannon/Dunbar) unanimously to approve the concept of decorative elements for the terrace. Additional selections will be offered by the architects. b. Internet Policy: Tabled until the July 15th meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS: a. Revised Board Meeting Schedule: Trustee Cannon said she would not be in attendance for the July meeting due to personal commitments. The Board indicated that the date Board meeting changes,would be acceptable. August 26th and September 23rd. President Herman said the Election of Officers would take place at the August Board Meeting. Page 2 President Herman thanked Trustee Taylor for her many dedicated years of service to the Library Board. The other Board members also thanked her. Trustee Taylor said she thoroughly enjoyed being on the Board. 9. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of June 17th, 1997 was adjourned at 5:45 pm. The next regular Board meeting will be held on July 15th, 1997 in the Conference Room at 130 Park Road. Respectfully submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Trustees Minutes 6/18/97 I Page 3 BURLINGAME l Ge</C L1'& City Librarian's Report July 15, 1997 "Something New is Building..." The building exterior is nearly complete. The new and replacement the roofing is in place. The concrete terrace flooring has been poured. The front porch and terrace will be poured later this week. The interior work continues at a rapid pace. Final plastering and painting is continuing on all levels. Permanent power will be in place shortly. Interior woodwork and trim is in place on the lower level and is being installed on the main and upper levels. Moveable furniture and office system furniture is on order. An initial telephone bid process was unsuccessful, resulting in a bid which was too high. The telephone system has been re-bid and should be awarded the week of July 14. Other equipment, including security systems, computers, and audio/visual systems are in the procurement stage and scheduled for installation. The bid for the move back into the building has been released and will be opened in the next week. Site work will be completed this week at the front of the building in preparation for new sidewalks and landscaping. A permanent pile support system is being installed to support the northeast corner of the existing Reference Room to minimize further potential settlement. Move Schedule The milestones of the move to the new main library are as follows: • September 13- Close Temporary Library • September 15- Begin Move to New Main Library • September 27- Elegant Evening Gala • October 4- Dedication and Grand Opening, 11-4 pm • October 5- Open House, 1-4 pm • October 6- First Open Day, 9 am Library Dedication Trustee Kristine Cannon and Former City Librarian Patti Bergsing promise a rousing opening day for the Dedication! Banners advertising the event will be placed on Broadway, as well as the Temporary Library and the new Main Library. Plans include keynote speaker State Librarian Kevin Starr, and a host of other special events. 480 Primrose Road • Burlingame, CA 94010-4083 • (415) 342-1038 • Fax (415) 342-1948 New Board Member At the City Council meeting of June 216, Mary Lou Morton was appointed to the - Library Board of Trustees for a 3 year term, replacing Jane Taylor. Mary Lou has been a teacher and volunteer in the Burlingame schools. She co-chaired the Tax Campaign for the schools, and was Co-Director of the Learning Center at Burlingame High School. We welcome Mary Lou to the Board! Internet Policy Review At the July 7'h City Council meeting, Councilman Spinelli presented his report on Internet use at the Library. After Council discussion, the Library Board of Trustees was reminded of their role in policy formation for collections and services, as outlined in the Education Code of the State of California. The Mayor directed the Board to carefully review and consider the Internet policy, considering aspects of intellectual freedom, access by children, and aspects of managing the service in the library. She suggested the Board's findings be brought back to the Council sometime in the Fall. At your request, the City Attorney reviewed the relevance of the Communications Decency Act on local policy. That document is in your packet. Children's Services The "Reading Safari" reading club is a big hit with the children and parents, over 200 children are participating so far. The children are enjoying finding the hidden animals and figuring out the clues—they come running back to the library, eyes aglow, after they've discovered the location! Easton Branch Branch Librarian Lisa Dunseth was honored by the Our Lady of Angels Third grade with a party and a hilarious collection of thank you "name" poems written in her honor. Branch volunteer Mindy Ormondroyd was honored at a "Workability Awards Ceremony" in San Mateo for her work at the Branch. Personnel We are currently recruiting for a full time Library Assistant I. The position will replace the retiring Periodical supervisor. The new position will require approximately half time in Technical Services in support of the periodical function, and approximately i half time for automation support. Upcoming Events: • Library Board Meeting, July 15, 4:30 pm j Libray Board Meeting, August 26, 4:30 pm • Library Board Meeting, September 23, 4:30 pm (Primrose Library • Foundation Elegant Evening, September 27, 6 pm • Dedication and Grand Opening, October 4, 11 am 1 2 • STATISTICS FOR JUNE 1997 REGISTERED BORROWERS: Total Registered: Burlingame Adults 15,845 Burlingame Children 3,280 Hillsborough Adults 2,225 Hillsborough Children 970 Universal Borrowers 255 Total Registered Borrowers: 22,575 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCULATION ACTIVITY: Main Branch i Adult Print Materials(books, periodicals, pamphlets, paperbacks) 18,789 1,085 Children's Print Materials (books, periodicals, pamphlets, paperbacks) 7,186 1,356 i Audio Visual Materials(records, cassettes, films, videos, cd's) 5,559 170 TOTALS: 31,534 2,611 Main Total 1997 Circ: 31,534 Main Total 1996 Circ: 29,635 = 6.40% Inc. Branch Total 1997 Circ: 2,611 Branch Total 1996 Circ: 2,723 = 4.10% Dec. Grand Total 1997 Circ: 34,145 Grand Total 1996 Circ: 32,358 = 5.50% Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFERENCE ACTIVITY: Questions Directions Reference 3,342 497 Children's 401 431 ILL Borrowed: 1,761 Branch 301 80 ILL Lent: 2,558 Total: 4,044 1,008 ILL Total: 4,082 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COLLECTIONS: MAIN BRANCH TOTAL VOLUMES/TITLES VOLUMES TOTAL VOLUMES Ad.Non-Fiction 118,540 /112,595 4,925 123,465 Ch.Non-Fiction 22,610 / 21,085 2,045 24,655 YA Non-Fiction 1,930 / 1,705 95 2,025 Ad. Fiction 51,495 / 49,900 5,590 57,085 Ch. Fiction 18,805 / 17,405 5,685 24,490 YA Fiction 2,855 / 2,595 355 3,210 Reference 5,600 / 5,400 200 5,800 Totals: 221,835 /210,685 18,895 240,730 -------------------------------------------------------___------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER MATERIALS: Pamphlets 31,455 Paperbacks 3,410 Maps 1,635 Records 1,500 Cassettes 7,725 Video Tapes 1,915 Compact Discs 1,650 __-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Deposited with the City Treasurer: Main: 2,163.25 Branch: 365.35 �ai S� 6 O Xerox: 391.00 Donations 175.00 CLSA: 25,376.05 Est. User Traffic: 22,244 Daily Avg.: 741 Children's Programs: 7 Attendance: 187 Children's Programs for the year 1997: 129 with a total attendance of 3,366 children CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: All Commissions DATE: April 11, 1997 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Advisory Status and Brown Act At their April 7 meeting, the city council asked that all commissions be reminded of their advisory status. Council has noticed that a number of commissions have been directing staff to prepare various reports or studies without council approval. By city code, all commissions are advisory except that under state law both the planning commission and library board have some additional authority. As a general rule, staff will be glad to answer informational requests from the commissions, but direction to undertake substantial studies or plans need to be approved by the council and city manager. The parks superintendent made a brief presentation to the Beautification Commission last month on a Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) checklist for the commission. It is a useful reminder that I thought was worth forwarding to all commissions: > Limit commission discussion to the items that are listed in the meeting's agenda. In addition to not being allowed under the Brown Act, it is unfair to the public, staff, and other commissioners to discuss non-agendized items. > If other items or issues come up, agree on a future meeting when the commission and the public will discuss them. > The Brown Act prohibits a majority of the commission from discussing any commission business outside the public commission meetings. This includes serial or sequential discussions. > It is usually poor practice to discuss appeals with other commissioners prior to a meeting. Law requires that these pre-meeting discussions be revealed at the time the appeal is heard by the commission, and these discussions often give the appearance of prejudgment of the appeal. > Other than the Civil Service Commission, city commissions cannot hold closed or "off the record" sessions. The Brown Act only allows closed sessions for very specific issues; except for personnel discipline that the Civil Service Commission may hear, city commissions do not consider those issues as defined in the Brown Act. City Attorney Larry Anderson would be happy to attend any commission meeting to discuss the Brown Act or any other commission concern, such as conflicts of interest or parliamentary procedure. Your staff liaison would be happy to arrange (and agendize) such a discussion. Please contact me if you have any questions. Dennis Argyres City Manager v c: Council Jq3(URL1NCA,11E_ To: All Staff Members From: The Board of Trustees Subject: EMPLOYEE ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS - 1996 Date: August 13, 1996 Over the years, the Board of Trustees has learned of the importance of the individual efforts of so many of you to the success of the Burlingame Library in our community. We know that while all of you do your jobs well, many of you give of your time and energy over and above your basic job descriptions. Our patrons appreciate that as evidenced by the many comments about a caring and efficient staff. We would like you to know that we, too, appreciate your efforts and abilities,and have established away to say thank you. In 1989 the Library Board of Trustees established "Employee Achievement Awards", and we have given 3 awards,annually, since then. The staff members to be honored each year are selected by the Library Board from nominations received from staff. Each employee is eligible to receive an award: full-time, part-time,administrators. Each person is important to make the system work, whether you work with the public or if you provide valuable back-up support. We would encourage each of you to submit one nomination for a co-worker for this year's awards. A nomination form is attached. Please provide all of the information requested and return it to the Board President's mailbox by September 13th, 1996. Please note the criteria. To win an award,an employee does not have to meet all of the criteria, but you must select those that best apply and then provide specific examples of a person's actions so that the Board can have adequate information to make selections. Thank you for the good jobs that you do, and we look forward to having the opportunity to recognize your special efforts. Sincerely, Library oard President 480 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-4083 (415) 342-1038 Fax (415) 342-1948 LIST OF WINNERS OF EMPLOYEE ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS 1989 Jim Kaufman Esther Cummings Cathy Somerton 1990 Michael Donnellan Joan Manini Patti Flynn 1991 Marilyn Morrison Deanna Tomei Vera Warrick 1992 Patti Bergsing Kathy Naftaly Paul Lechich 1993 Hilde Rooth Nancy Montague Ramona Boada 1994 Mark Koff Tracy Hammond Jan Laurie 1995 Al Escoffier Dorothy Ezquerro Manuel Caneri 1996 Mary Scharlan Dorothy Wilson Lisa Dunseth Ocar sir or- Mocka►rn. We o} ,C)Uf a6 Em s 0 ars Vick►c3�c���.-� � ��L �n C.��r' ��c11i�1-r �-@eons QtILC' CiOGS hc�5 �� OtiC`S�OslQt't� � �i sh �5 cur sic©cid �u J C Lue c�un d Wo ��nv�o►�� i� v C-v e'r-Not , 40v-,f-1 d iic r car- �rv'►�� kDe vo us Rectse c tA„s 4--Cts -j vve hope v� Witl So d LAS a OCc Ionar . Lowc.� - i Box �c1sc�� Z►r�c-�1�c�bwc - - /Z 7JI�Js�x.�as 1j 1 —.. -- ---' — -- —1— - . -- J✓..:LJ 1LF1J��17:�1777 r'.fall U1 et. OM141 tb.fb.W yay tu-eA raw mi M-20-97 ,111 113:55 P.01 if RIC 1 PAAK EXGC-tMVE allILDiNG - 905 1� STREET . SUrM 14M SAGRAmEr'JTQ. GA 95814 • (916) 448-2196 • FAX (9t8) 44944 Jure 28, 1997 TO: =A Mt:MOMS AND ALL CCOPERATPM LMMMY SYSTEMS FROM: Mike Di-Ow: Lobbyist RE: ERAP CMNM In mcent weeks, iiia Caffarnia Library Association (CIA) nes rvcse red numerous quesifons 3bO9A Revenue and Taxation code, 3SWon 37.37, and an opiniun by the ""hief Counsel Of the S!3te Conttler's Offim about t9 SecUm. CLA a rGCGiv V these queWma bmuse the Secdan Yme Passad into taw in 1894 by SS 1M8 (Digs). which was sPonwed by the Azmxc a ipn. The purpose of the measure was to prevent the site fr m shiftfrtg OW rnom ' prlrty taac then had atrwvdy bwm shifbm:i avray iron} a c ourfly property tax Library, br Wary ddb*t. in the prior Nvo f cai years_ SB 1648 added Seem 87.031 to ft Revenue and Taxaiicn Coda, wh dr mads: "Not va1WM ttdmg any other pmvrsiart of this chapter. for th8 1994-35 fisc{ year and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount tW prqperty tax revs ue deemed aft ested in the prior flout yew to a county free Ubrary, or a rrbtary *S1abkJvd as an irtdOPW1deF4 app dfatdrg, s1W not be reduced for purposes of incrwsmg the amount CN prop"tax revenue Tz be eflow*a to ar zdw jurisdk;5on." The Aosoc4tian do" not feed it can interpret the Revenue and Taxation Code, if Cl_A wombors and rater Wderestsd parties have questions about Na matter, A is recommended that they dirsct their quawaorm to their mi peobve Camity Au=r-C.-ntm m and County Cautisets. Tfie Aswdaft t teas a COVY of the bill anti LOM Govemment Commme anahrsis. if you want taPWO You MY requea them from the CLA office 6 ttiono 916-44,'- 1}, 3f you w*ft a cagy OY the opirdon *wn ttte C.hW Coure ! of the State Cwb-cW:x Gam, conted the CatU bmia State Urmyr, LHorary Cev. Servkms at 91"53-6217_ ocaeo FaX Now T. Ll�i DtiTb�S Fait F- L D t; T3TAL P.01 ] 1�iZ�Ic"•�N 3�1 CI ''�` 4 Assc7nbly Gall iomia Lcf-,isiatlu-C PETER FR-'uw- -rSETTA July 1, 1997 PETER FRUSETTA VOTES TO FUND LIBRARIES Sacramento-- Today the State Assembly passed Senate Bill 154. This measure supported by Assemblyman Peter Frusetta (R. Tres Pinos) allows a county, upon a vote of the Board of Supervisors and a subsequent 2/3rds vote of the county's voters, to enact either a 118 or 114 cent increase in the sales tax for the express purpose of funding libraries. The 213 voter approval requirement in this bill satisfies the requirements of Proposition 218. The increase in sales tax will be implemented for 18 years and will fund library l construction, acquisitions, programs and operations in accordance with an expenditure plan included in the tax ordinance adopted by the county board of supervisors. _ In past years, the Legislature has passed similar measures for San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties_ S13 154 would give other counties this same option. County libraries, particularly those libraries heavily dependent on the property tax; were severely devastated by Proposition 13, and again in recent years when their remaining AB 8 property tax 5Nas taken to balance the State Budget. ` "The need is obvious," stated Assemblyman Frusetta. "Many libraries have cut services to meet declining budgets and/or sought private contributions. SE 1 1-514 allows local voters to decide whether they want to provide additional support to financially strapped Library systems." The iaw would take effect January 1, 1998, and likely ailow counties to put the sales tax measure before the voters in the 1998 primary election. Before this occurs however, libraries will face lean times. Libraries have had to cut their hours, staff positions and their booklmaterials buying budgets. "This measure is modest in scope, but provides critical funding. This problem is endemic throughout the state. Revenue is dwindling as public dollars become more and more scarce. Libraries are suffering throughout the state. This measure is a step in the right direction," concluded Frusetta. CAPTTAT.QTrTi T.: Slab.[':goiinl•Sac*a*—w,"A o3.".I1- Ph—..:,9161 ss 'zSn-raC: 9,6j 24-iw d DTSTT2TCT Orr CT- 121 I`;heeL Stnl e A.TTnllkt-,f'1 9502.1.Phu nr ldOAI 6U-094-r!\-iaw)636-4905 I JUN-27-1997 14:?,7 BALIS PLS SBCLS 14153495089 P.01iO4 OWL11W It-JA.1f _a_t �z� �aaa� �a ua.�waiu •use. a—" JUR-27-97 FRI 12:09 P.01 f� CALJFCRNIA LIBRARY ASSQC'AMON SUMMARY CF 1997 L5-r-+SLA-nCN 813,L ALl7HC t CESCRlPT CN STATUS AB I AGUTAR Would teeze ttle current F-RAr Assert" support (Educadanj l Revenue Augmen%*tior% Local Gowrnmusit Funn) shift amount at ltd)"7 Levels, heid in carnnittt O. and gradua4 mWrn prop" tax revenues to ccvnties mid other bcat mmmrnerds that are annuW *xzn5fea8d to tie EducaEonai Revenue Aug=T atmn Fund. AR 9i- FNE`f1$G�JL4R WOU� pve �a eb,rn ref 1C? Senate atbm Support of the property tax base a2ch ycar. APPMPri over the neg 10 Year--, to cites, cavamq", Wiwi special districts, accwdng to the pmpoftn Of their cur=t ERAF trarWer, and cap the shift of;omi pmpeny banes to 8RAF. AIR 132!MMPBE As aRnetced. would require a school Senate Farr Dina r+pnre distJrid tat prmdas puplis wilds .,CC= to the lrAtMft Or an online service, to adopt a policy mPrding aacees by pupft to tntemet and on4iir� sates that lonttain or make reference to ham&-1 matter, as defted, sexual acts, drugs or the drug Culture, gambling, illegal 2CUV iy, 2J=h0Nc beverages, and tobacco. A9 atgHjEEMEEGG C=an Gomptairit Ac,'of l987. wculd Sonata Govemmental vmrch requim each SW awnCj, inc,'Udit organ"Wn CSU, to make ava&ibie on its lntemet web site. a fam through which CesidenU can rragister oompl nt& State agencies must then inform these with comptairns. of the nea►eat public Gbraary provid" tntemat ao5 ess. Libraries, "through the extant perm ted through doratione wQU,d adve.--tise they provide this sort/M AS 34L9RHNLAUND 3pon3om d by San 3emaTdino =urtty, Senate ri$tions Support would. in Mute years, dist Bute PLF APA P funding on a per capita baeis if A rrdim Teats a level that hoods art 1&06e8 hanness- A5 383-RICHTEk ERAF bk Would eliminate men Asserrabty 'A f am tl msmr PtFri 16jW1S to"fr;x4ier LOCW GOVL cousries.A witch do not berAM Nom Faiied PassaM. 8Y ertmornies of scale but 5 Rpoanalderation Daft ��dPapm required ;o provide tM SXrA grafi. Fam kaj* T' ORA" pti9'ecit S Fax* r R� LD C, Pr"W J un -'r-s 7�( 14 r' L2rL `Bt t 15�495�i89 P.0c:1 E4 1'blGtl�f t4.1L.� �y. �"i7 �W:7 1C!!i!A!t[El y sayrc use_ JFW-27-97 'RI 10 P.02 range of gervim as larger counties. , HENY Creates me Lieracy "or Puubl{c Safety Assembly support Program: a library sammes Program Apcarowaaons to Mcrease the 7.ngiiSh 12NUage Held on the literacy of persons ca Wkted of a Crime StAwnse 'e and sentermd to a local comectional indefrrtiltely. fiasdkf]r, or relmsed on parole or probamon. Auttmams public abrader. with current adult Gftracy ser+fires to =Mlmste etTorts Wdt local sherifts, Diredflr of CorreLWOns, Of parole Of probabM dogartMenL The CL83 would award campetuve grams to eligNe Public Tibrories. AB SNDA This n Slue is gn dtt Ml:t to Senate viletictl reduce the ntr:itipls Volum O 9ducabon Education Code. artd mcast severad sedtona irft different cue eecborm. A5 part of the phrase, many provis om relating to pubft libraries would be shifted.to tree Gevemment Carse. AR 498-WIL 1 Rec rdly arrr n ded to oarttn same Senate support as A rarctod language as SB 1265-4ohns Dn- Education a 21-rWRIM lncreases the fees for Mh9 a claim Asgammy Floor Support in small claims court by S2. This amatlm would be dePosftd into the Law Library Trust Fuad. AS $62-pUCH)=JdY CreataG the Library Materials Fund, Senate Support under the State Superintendent to Education annua%f apportion to each school diWct the sum of$5 fol each unit of ACA, to purcwse maWrlais that maY Include, but are not limfted to boobs, rafof*noes =to6als. Pedof icalS. laser ctslm. oto As sgz Dzm-PSON_ spor=oced by the city of Mu6oda, Sema LOCW Dirsapprnve would aflowr fur ft w0drawel of Govemment itt:raries from the Riverside County free library system►. AS 1 t 34T-R G A_ llrlouid create the SWe I-Mmcy Assembly Support Resume Center, a mulbagericy Educadon opdaboration for trio imoroverrrcnt of trtreraa "earch. s6ff develoPment, resource sharing, and information dissernmation. Also crOGW5 a Literacy Councd on whxh a member of the State- Library would be seatea. JUN 2'r'-1 y`'r 14:38 BAL I S PLE SBCLS 14153495089 P.03/04 C/41/71 l%.AS-33 ILL" J•! -.Wt 1YM A.uiu au � y.. — — J1JN-27-97 FSI 12!10 AB l$E �R1N Same as SB ;340-Caidamn re9wd'ln5 Asseni* 8UPPO' a tax sxenscwn 'for'supers and AppWiittlgrts iaerioc�icals. Hata on U* Suspense Fits lrtdefirtEbely. AGA 4- GU]ARZSINEENEy same ocmerti ars A9 W but as a Sense Local Support constihmnat anwndmerst, =Ltd Gc%oeTrmmrA $ two *=d on the statewide ballot by a CarrstiZtMi M* tvuo-this vote of ttte Ag6jaWm, thus Arnendments ents avaiding a Govemoes veto. ThMugh nogotlawrN with both alltboM the NO will be iOiM-auihnrbd dy both Aswrnblyman Sweeney and AssembiyrnM Aguiair, as the Local Goven, meat Canals vehicle. $E 11845pPP_ Pub6d nb&M, am=V oftr things. Senate Watch Close crgns" a stats mandate, by AptroP6afiOns requiring apunty recorders to SOP* irtkr Talon raooved by nemspOPM regarr ng ftmous business nam sbftMei'i, , to tfte$Cate Librarian for inclusion on its CaMbrnia harnepage on Im Internet. SB 147�4YA WatM zapuirae Mat no tsty, countY, sore* MWpPWe or local agency may in=any Education indelaWInm (Stich as aerIficates of participation [Cops), "damned, V*hout prior approval by a majority of the voters. SB 154-THOWSON WWd sufteMe the board A�mbly 3ponaormuj=rt of supervisors in a covntyl to impose a 114 or 118 cent sales tax, su*ct to a =Tds vote of tree voters in a counfy. and not to exceed 16 Yom, ;p tse used only for Nxat y purpcses- 5S 3-q§ RA)NEY As amended, creatas the State Senate support Uaracy Rescume Cantos, with Appmpriatians parameters identical to AS 1503-Perat3. SB 275-SHER Would place a cap on the amount Assembly Support that Sward of Equafzation cart Play ky p4sa upon acWr.isl vOon costs for!rie County of 9tanWalcus in Collecting the flax for t.0 support of cauMyvaae library pRVarrm• Bill also authorizes the Board of Supervisc m in San MftO CotmtY to I" a sate: tax for the support Lqr.=r i-7�r iw- DO bHL15 y HU: �ti[L� '4153495oeq P.04/04 UId/!5f lY-A7.Ab ��� IUM 3"Y3 =0015 tnui�e:uia sayer W't -IN-2T-97 FRI 12.,11 P. a of public elementary and secondary aducation, oommunity coileges, padt8, ano libra[?". subject tu a 2/3rds vola of thio voters in 'die county- SO 409-ALPERT The Ubmry of Catibmia: Serrabe & SWEENEY Sponsored by CLA, would A.pprspriabont CLA Sponsored estal itM a major, mtewide Hent on the ntetworiang systern of rmwume- SLspenw File sharing, =nmunitalions and indefniftty. delivery, and presermtion of materials lar approximately 8,0010 of Cardbrrdws Mu ltype Ubraries- SB_ A M8QDY Would name the law I1rary of ti're Assembly Approve Caffornis Stara L brary the Judiciary Bem2rd W. V ldn State taw Library of Caufomia. 877-VA$P0NCZLj,0S Creates the Caiifarrtia Community kssernWy Support Cohere Fxutty. Counselor, and Hider Education librarian Full-Tne Fund vvOln the Stem Treasury to create a net increase In full-time f*adty, counselor, and librarian positions in the Cat'fornia Community Colleges. BSC_„ A N ERAF bdl' Similar to AS lb's- assembly Support Sweeney/Aclar. floor SS 1 too-SOLVS Sponaorerd by Los Angeles county, Azsmnbly Smart would stow a City, county or Local library district to request a PLF Govemment waiver if r*gatively impacted by Propostor 218. SB 1286 JOHNSTON Cn a pkat !oasis, would allow for Serme Watch/Close several jairrNise library facilty Appropriations pm,ects between a school district Held on the and a city or county public library. Suspense File The State Allocation Board would inde'frriitely. award grants from current school bona funds to school districts of no more than $50,000 for!hose school distt'icts expressing iritwest, and $200,1500 W to three years for offal gMnis *Mh schools dernonavating rsadinass, 86 1.309-CAtDOWN Would create a general tax Senate Support exemption for ail newspapers Appr+opriabons and panodlcats in Calitom►a. Committee Ga7J97 TOTAL P.04 ' l\ CITY C� BURLl .GAME . N os q 0 9 oAAT"Jl ze♦ E M.OHONY,MAYOR MIKE S � e CIO of �urrfrlffame MIKE PINELLI,VICE MAYOR A.C."BUD'HARRISON MARY JANNEY CITY HALL—501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (415)696-7200 MARTI KNIGHT BURLINGAME.CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (415)342-8386 June 30, 1997 0 TO: Presidents of Lions, Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs, City Commissioners: Leadership is an important element in the success of any community. As you have demonstrated yourself as a leader in our community, I want to make you aware of an exciting educational and leadership development opportunity. Leadership San Mateo/Foster City/Burlingame/Hillsborough is an adult education program sponsored by the San Mateo, Foster City, Burlingame Chambers of Commerce and the Town of Hillsborough. The Leadership program looks for individuals who are interested in giving back to the community and learning more about how their community operates. This is facilitated by a combination of lecture and discussion with key decision makers and local leaders and field trips to different locations. - I Participation in Leadership requires a time commitment of one day per month, usually the second Friday of the month, from September through June. At each session,participants learn about and discuss a subject important to the quality of life in our community. Topics include law enforcement, business and economic development, the environment, education, government, health care, human services, arts and culture, transportation, housing and planning, and leadership dynamics. The class also commits to working on a community based project which is accomplished through additional work outside of the sessions. The class is made up of 25 to 30 people from all walks of life including business, non profit, government and local residents. What all of these participants share in common is they want to "make a difference" in their community. Applications are now being accepted for the class to begin in September of 1997. This class is limited to 30 individuals and the application process is critical in reserving a seat. The tuition is $1,000. A discount is t available for early registration; need-based financial aid is also available. I hope you will consider participating in the 1997-98 Leadership class. For additional information or to begin the application process, please call Marista Chew, Program Coordinator, at 415-341-5679. Sincerely, C,g, A. 0 , Rosalie M. O'Mahony Mayor .AD ANTAGE LEADERSHIP OPENS DOORS OUR FOUNDEMS I.eadershi,l,kill.enable dw parlivill:ulis Io tiau \lateu Chamber 4)l•Conan4.ree_ (:it%'of s.111 Developing :Ithant c ill Iheir 4.:aver goals:old t nlrul4.c Iheil' Mateo. Bal- Meadows. 13nllnnnun Develt►,►uleul ,►4.1,4)11:11?r dl• (:onl,►an. 13urel Bank. Browning-Ferris Indus- huliciduals parlieil1.11ill"in Ilse llrograill fries. Fr:lnklin (:r411111 0l•Pends. Mills-Peninsula Leaders will I11ee1 and inter.14.1 willl kt•�• leader; in Ille I luspitals. John & I Iel4.n liaises•. lied��ood Rank. 1r4 W41111111(1111.11. 4.4)1114)1':111., It(111-,11'lllll :Ind tiau N1:111U lit►lal'y: .11111 W1`Ils 1'al'-tl R.1IIk. fur-l►rufil privale.Ind llnl►lic sevfos:s of flit' ,lal'114.1,►:Illllg 1't 11111111111111Ps. AllwisO�;�• ')(►A�{D Through 'llu►se,rtt•ti4.ularl�' inleresled in .1d�'aure- 111t•nl 144-v%. leadership rule, widlin their President: Diane(;hristenti4.n. I'r4.sidenl Iaecf: 4)rganizations and tht 4.ununuuin a1 I'll-4. will G. Lawrence Alkinsun. Vice Presidents: ;'reafIV I►enefit from Illi; ,Ittl•11r:ull. Gloria Rrown..lolul Drilper—loc Gallig.111., K.C. � 1.4.ad4.rtihil►gradilaws will herlefil b' Unyr. Karen Tremain. \ umbers: Sharon Atkins. Community exltantlilt" Iheir base of knua ledg4.0l'hu�� IA. 13jornd:1111., Michael 13er111►e, (:ural Roes.. Iheir 4.u1un11unities lgwraw. 'I'lle progr:1111 David Bohannon. II. Tish Russelle. Tom. l►rovidvs Irlrtieilruus olym-1u11ifies Io sh:ue Consl:usfonros. :�rne(;rove.. Monte Da}•Inn. Iheir ideas:uhl to ne1��•4)rk ��'ith other Basil I•:11u•r�'.. (;h4.r%l I•:nrighl. Diane I?r�'in. Involvement llrolissi4)n.1ls. 'I'llis li►rnnl 4.niti�alt s:ul .1:1114.1 Frakes. Cando(:roonl. .lerr�' hill. c11�'iromnent ��hi4.h e1111:111ves posilivegnmill line Lawrence. Mary.lanney: .lohn Kell. in 4)111•vuo1n11111i1%. William McDo11a111. .1ohn Roul. Bertha tialwhez. Mal—cy tichllllz, .11111.lohn %ir'(.11i. BOARD ur TRusrn1-,s President: Tom Nhirk. ;hemmers: Robed Banws. John If. Chilton. .11%. I fill Dick. T.lack Foster: Jerr, I:nehs.. Nick Genian). Joseph Grevidiach. L e a d e r s h i George M. Keller. (shades Mason, Gonlon Moore. p hick NInrra%. .Ir.. Frances Nelson., .lohn R:Iiser•' 5.111 �laleo• I?osier(;i1� • 13urling.1uu • I lillshorungh Fr:ulk 64.-:111. (:h:11•les 111l;,t•Il. .11141ge I'Ilr:l,el tihelton. :Mike Shen. (wenn Smith. Lino Valhllsa. I•;14.anor Williams.,and \Villialu Wilson. For awire information' on the 1021 S. FA Camim Real Second Floor Leadership Program,please call ti:ut Maim, (.r1 9-f�0'� Jllaritsa Chew at (415)341-56?9. (-+15) 341-5079 (415) :341-0679 fllx THz LEADERSHIP EXPERIE1 CE Alil)u'r '1'111: l.l:;U)I:Iiy111P PROCIIA11 . CORPORATE REINl:rrrS "lire/,t•ttderslri/►nti.v.tiintt is to ith,rNifi'rtrttl h a I:a 111011111 I:r: -noll of inunll:h• 1121%-loll" 1311,inrsses air •:1 to spoils l-a calmli:lafe ttnrltrte t•.rislitt`;rrnrl/ olenlitrl connalatill' s4.111inars, I►,1rticillanls eng ip. in face to fa1.1.(Iisens- in 111c I.ea(I4.rs11il► I'ror;1111. Over illyears, 141 Itas levelers. io inrremie their kaorrlr(lgre t f'lhe ,ion, with exlua•ts unit key (lecisio11-nmk4.rs in turas of Imr11 pl-oven 111,11 Ialsinesses Ilrofil front Illeir rorrmamill; artdlo derelop and enhance vital concern to tiara :Mateo, Foster(:if%-. 13111•1ill"mill 1 n1I11oy(1's involv4.n14 nl 11y: h1diricliml lewhm-ship skills." ,11111 1 lillslloronl;ll. ?slulllisllin�;:1 cu1►Iac1 base of k(-N, 'I'Ilis con11)re1i•nsiv4.11rograln consists of I lisetlssiotls, F.ver� conuunnil) (lelx nits on (l4.(licate(I. l4.clur4.s'110tones m•ro11n(lill;,Illt• Followill"Topics: 14.,11111:,,111(1 Inlsinrsscs llnunrilulnl 111( cununnnily; knowle(I;-eallle an(1 4.ffeclive lea(Iers. Heco;,rlizi11" Illest• in(livi(I11als:11141 Ilevelopill" their leatlel-siIlila ��PO"rPalll �):1fCS X997-1 JS)�� I)4.velolliu;�,1 "l'eaner exposure for skills Ihr•o11,�h conlnu14tily involvenu nl is IllV a 1114• business; focus of Ili• I 'I'rrni•n(l"lls ti,•1lteutber l.ea(Iershill I)%nantics 1 1/2(lays I1o14.nlial lin•lea(lershill exists in Illi business. I:nb:1111 in;�I1ruf4.ssioual •overnn►enl. e(111eation :11141 non-Ilrofil sectors of Orlohe (levelolanavlal: • r (:overnni•nt nlll'eu11111111I111�'. (:malin�;olalaorlanailies Cur November Lalw I..nforcellmllt con111114ni1v ilnolvenaenl. "Leadership has produced,a solid group of knowledgeable.. dedicated I)evelulaer I:(l11cali(11l "Leadership is nit excellent pr(gram individurtl.Y to serve our canunrrnil : which allows participants to rain y la11nary I lealth (:,1r4. - Graduates have none on M serve knowledge about the service and non-pro�t orl;n►ri�alious, Nebrnary 1111111:111 tiervi(rs support syWenrs provided through [he neiryhborhood�rrou s combined(ffor[s of business aur! a a P \larch Rusinl•ss .` I•:conon(ii• and city corrunissious.." I)ev4.1ol1na 111 conrnrrutily as well as to become better acquainled with each other." Arue Croce,CilyMana/;er Aril art .` CIIIIIIrr 1 ileen Main, Smell Business Co-Owner City-of Situ Mateo �la� I:nvironnleut;11 Issues Autericau Speedy Prinlinn Class of'94 .bnu• 'I'ransllorl.1tion. 11ousin, OUR COM11UNITV SUPPORT S(:Ilol;UIS1111' (:reale(I in 19!"0 to •,enerate an exllan(lin;,base \ee(I 11.1sell filuanrial a641 is available fur Ibow who of knowlell;,eallle vilizean anal fol11r4. leaders. Ih4. k joov 15. 1007. program was Ilevelope(I b .111 A(Ivisol.% Noanl:an(I 1111. 1311:14•O o1•"I'rislves. mlaresellho,.1 eros-srcnoll I'lle I.e.1(IersIlill class will also collabor,114.on .1 I11-oj4.I'I TUITION of 1114.con►n11II61%'s onlstan(lin;, I4..1(l4.1•S. specific.111%. (lesi,n4.(I to 114.114.1.11 lite con11nunily. 'I'uitiola is,11(11)0. M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ATTORNEY DATE: July '), 1997 TO: Al Escoffier, Librarian FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney RE : Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union (Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA)) U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Case No. 96-511 You asked what effect this decision might have on the Library's ability to-deal with access to the Internet. Attached is a copy of the decision together with Justice O'Connor's dissent to part of the decision. As you can see, the decision focuses on the standards that government must apply when it regulates speech -- in this case, speech over the Internet, particularly when a violation is to be considered a criminal act. Two elements of the CDA particularly troubled the Court -- the words "indecent" and "patently offensive." The Court concluded that these two terms are too vague and would unnecessarily threaten speech that is protected by the First Amendment. However, the Court found no difficulty affirming that pornographic/obscene speech could be made unlawful. Justice O'Connor's dissent adds a strong basis for protecting minors from "harmful" material. There have been a number of recent decisions that allow government regulation of speech, such as newsrack displays, in shielding them from minors. This decision gives us some analysis for developing standards of conduct to ensure that what is defined as inappropriate behavior is not so vague as to be unenforceable. This is particularly important when such behavior might result in exclusion or arrest. The decision also supports strong action if pornographic or obscene material is displayed or transmitted in violation of state or federal law. Ultimately, however, the case is not very helpful for considering access in the library to public materials or equipment, whether on the Internet, in books, or in other forms of speech. The library remains a place in which speech, whether spoken, written, or conduct, can be reasonably regulated to preserve the integrity and purpose of the library. 97 Friday. ;ung _7, 19Q Daily appellate Report 51 33 tion providing patients with drugs suificient to control pain CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ith- despite the risk :hat those drugs themselves will kill. Cr s i . New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Communications Decencv,-Act on 1996 s sm— When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Vioiates First Amendment By Banning Due Euthanasia in the Medical Context 163. n. 29 (May Indecenr Material in Cyberspace. the 1994). And under these circumstances the laws of New at York and Washington would overcome any remaining ula- sienificant interests and would be iustified. regardless. Cite as 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8133 ourt Medical technology, .%-e are repeatedly told, makes rev's the administration of pain-relieving drugs sufficient, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES the except for a very few individuals for whom the ineffec- rent tiveness of pain control medicines can mean, not pain. Syllabus ride but the need for sedation which can end in a coma. Ards Brief for National Hospice Organization 3: Brief for RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF pec- Brief American Medical Association (AMA) et al. as THE UNITED STATES. ET AL. lie Amici Curiae 6; see also Bvock. Consciously Walking }. mal the Fine Line: Thoughts on a Hospice Response to AMERICAN CIVIL 'ary Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, 9 J. Palliative Care LIBERTIES UNION ETAL. —16 25, 26 (1993); New York State Task Force, at 44. and n. 37. We are also told that there are many instances APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 6 37 in which patients do not receive the palliative care that. THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYL'V'ANIA 367 in principle, is available, id., at 43-47; Brief for AMA rim. as Amici Curiae 6; Brief for Choice in Dying. Inc., as No. 96-511. Argued March 19. 1997—Decided June ling Amici Curiae 20, but that is so for institutional reasons 26, 1997 ons or inadequacies or obstacles, which would seem that possible to overcome, and which do not include a Two provisions of the Communications Decency prohibitive ser of laws. Ante, at 2 (O'CoNNOR, J., Act of 1996 (CDA or Act) seek to protect minors from ;any concurrin-a); see also 2 House of Lords. Session 1993— harmful material on the Internet, an international lice li1994 Report of Select Committee on Medical Ethics network of interconnected computers that enables tale 113 (1994) (indicating that the number of palliative millions of people to communicate with one another in :al) care centers in the United Kingdom. where physician "cyberspace" and to access vast amounts of information lay, assisted suicide is illegal, significantly exceeds that in from around the world. Title 47 U. S. C. A. 1v. the Netherlands, where such practices are legal). §223(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Supp. 1997) criminalizes the"know- �OS This legal circumstance means that the state laws ing"transmission of"obscene or indecent" messages to S before us do not infringe directly upon the (assumed) any recipient under 18 years of age. Section 223(d) 165 central interest (what I have called the core of the prohibits the "knowin(g]" sending or displaying to a 316 interest in dying with dignity) as, by way of contrast, person under 18 of any message "that, in context, the state anticontraceptive laws at issue in Poe did depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as Aras interfere with the central interest there at stake—by measured by contemporary community standards, ion bringing the State's police powers to bear upon the sexual or excretory activities or organs." Affirmative the marital bedroom. defenses are provided for those who take "good faith, Drill Were the legal circumstances different—for . . . effective . . . actions"to restrict access by minors to law example, were state law to prevent the provision of the prohibited communications. §223(e)(5)(A), and :al, palliative Care, including the administration of drugs as those .who restrict such access by requiring certain needed to avoid pain at the end of life--then the law's designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit y impact upon serious and otherwise unavoidable card or an adult identification number, §223(e)(5)(B). cf. physical pain (accompanying death) \would be more A number of plaintiffs filed suit challenging the consti- dla directly at issue. And as JUSTICE O'CONNOR su22estS, tutionality of §§223(a)(1) and 223(d). After making the Court might have to revisit its conclu::ions in these extensive findings of fact, a three-judge District Court ion cases. r convened pursuant to the Act entered a preliminary .al, injunction against enforcement of both challenged cal provisions. The court's judgment enjoins the Govern- 3e. ment from enforcing §223(a)(I)(B)'s prohibitions 0). insofar as they relate to "indecent" communications, but expressly preserves the Government's right to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or child or pornography activities prohibited therein. The is injunction against enforcement of §223(d) is the unqualified because that section contains no separate uh reference to obscenity or child pomu,raphy. The ny Government appealed to this Court under the Act's OR I special review provisions, arguing that the District ng Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth sw Amendment because it is vague. rm Held: The CDA's "indecent transmission" and 313 Daily _-appellate Report _ =�day. �ttne _. • i997 F' patently offensive display" provisions abridse "the CDA prohibition extends also "excretory activities" freedom of speech" protected by the First .amendment. and "ors rec Pp. 17-40. _ans" of both a sexual and excretory nature. the (a)Althoug Each of Miller's other nvo prongs aiso critically limits pro ,h the CDA's vagueness is relevant to the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition. Just the First Amendment overbmadih inquiry, the because a definition including three'! but judgment should be affirmed without reaching the Fifth vague, it does not follow thatzoner e those limitatations is not wh, Amendment issue. P. 1 enc (b) A close look at the precedents relied on by the underminesonethe likelihood that it as been carefullystandina al , is not vaue. The CA's vartai- sprc ie: Government—Ginsberg v. ,Vew York, 390 U. S. 629; lored to the congressional goal of protecting minors FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, and from potentially harmful materials. Pa. 24-28, une' Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41— (e) ThCDA Firs raises, rather than relieves, doubts about the CDA's Amendment requui esl when t aes aion tutes regulatesthttthe con- mac not constitutionality. The CDA differs from the various tent of speech. Although the Government has an pe: laws and orders upheld in those cases in many ways, interest in protecting children from potentially harmful including that it does not allow parents to consent to materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the she; their children's use of restricted materials; is not CDA pursues that interest by suppressing a large hon limited to commercial transactions; fails to provide any amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right definition of"indecent"and omits any requirement that to send and receive, see, e.g., Sable, supra, at 126. Its con: "patently offensive" material lack socially redeeming to value; neither limits its broad categorical prohibitions on adults speech s unprecedented. The' gifeless'Aes restrictive ean to particular times nor bases them on an evaluation by alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving mar, an agency familiar with the medium's unique the Act's legitimate purposes. See, e.g., Sable, 492 mat, characteristics; is punitive; applies to a medium that, U. S., at 126. The Government has not proved frog unlike radio, receives full First Amendment protection; otherwise. On the other hand, the District Court found Pp- and cannot be.properly analyzed as a form of time, that currently available user-based software suggests place, and manner regulation because it is a content- that a reasonably effective method by which parents based blanket restriction on speech. These precedents, can prevent their children from accessing material prop then, do not require the Court to uphold the CDA and which the parents believe is inappropriate will soon be cons are fully consistent with the application of the most widely available. Moreover, the arguments in this drag stringent review of its provisions. Pp. 17-21. Court referred to possible alternatives such as requiring fac (c)The special factors recognized in some of the that indecent material be "tagged"to facilitate parental unre Court's cases as justifying regulation of the broadcast control, making exceptions for messages with artistic offe: media the history of extensive government regulation or educational value, providing some tolerance for Inte of broadcasting, see, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. parental choice, and regulating some portions of the 929 v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 399-400; the scarcity of Internet differently than others. Particularly in the �-- available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner light of the absence of any detailed congressional in Broadcasting System, Inc. v, FCC,512 U. S. 622, 637– findings, or even hearings addressing the CDA's GlN, 638; and its "invasive" nature, see Sable special problems, the Court is persuaded that the CDA file Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, is not narrowly tailored. Pp. 28-33, diss 128—are not present in cyberspace. Thus, these cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First for sus ainin�Gthe eCDA's affirmativernment's three tprohibitio seare Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to the rejected. First, the contention that the Act is con- Internet. Pp. 22-24. stitutional because it leaves open ample "alternative c (d) Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague channels" of communication is unpersuasive because that it violates the Fifth Amendment, the many the CDA regulates speech on the basis of its content, so ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render that a "time, place, and manner" analysis is it problematic for First Amendment purposes. For inapplicable. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. of N. J instance, its use of the undefined terms "indecent" and Y.v. Public Serv- Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 536. "patently offensive" will provoke uncertainty among Second, the assertion that the CDA's "knowledge" and speakers about how the two standards relate to each "specific person" requirements significantly restrict its other and just what they mean. The vagueness of such permissible application to communications to persons a content-based regulation, see, e.g., Gentile v. State the sender knows to be under 18 is untenable, given Bar of Nev., 501 U. S. 1030, coupled with its increased that most Internet forums are open to all comers and on deterrent effect as a criminal statute, see, e.g., that even the strongest reading of the "specific person" Dombrowski V. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, raise special requirement would confer broad powers of censorship, First Amendment concerns because of its obvious in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of chilling effect on free speech. Contrary to the indecent speech. Finally, there is no textual support for ! Government's argument, the CDA is not saved from the submission that material having scientific, educa- vagueness by the fact that its "patently offensive" stan- tional, or other redeeming social value will necessarily prov dard repeats the second part of the three-prong fall outside the CDA's prohibitions. Pp. 33-35. and obscenity test set forth in Miller v. California, 413 (g) The §223(e)(5) defenses do not constitute the Ince: U. S. 15, 24. The second Miller prong reduces the sort of "narrow tailoring" that would save the CDA, tmp� inherent vagueness of its own "patently offensive" term The Government's argument that transmitters may take chip by requiring that the proscribed material be "specify- protective "food faith actio(n]" by "tagging" their thret cally defined by the applicable state law." In addition, indecent communications in a way that would indicate freer the CDA applies only to "sexual conduct,"whereas, the their contents, thus permitting recipients to block their Amc )97 Fridav, lune =7. 1997 Daily appellate Report 3135 ties" receotion with appropriate software, is illusory, given ture. the requirement that such action be "effective": The I mit• proposed screening software does not currently exist, The District Court made extensive findings of fact, Jud but, even if it did, there would be no way of knowing most of which were based on a detailed stipulation not whether a potential recipient would actually block the prepared by the parties. See 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-849 ons, encoded material. The Government also failed to (ED Pa. 1996).- The findings describe the character ness prove that §223(b)(5)'s verification defense would and the dimensions of the Internet, the availability of tai- significantly reduce the CDA's heavy burden on adult sexually explicit material in that medium, and the nors speech. Although such verification is actually being problems confronting age verification for recipients of used by some commercial providers of sexually explicit Internet communications. Because those findings ?irst material, the District Court's findings indicate that it is provide the underpinnings for the legal issues, we con- not economically feasible for most noncommercial begin with a summary of the undisputed facts. an speakers. Pp. 35-37. nful (h)The Government's argument that this Court The Internet the should preserve the CDA's constitutionality by The Internet is an international network of intercon- irge honoring its severability clause, §608, and by netted computers. It is the outgrowth of what began ip ight construing nonseverable terms narrowly, is acceptable 1969 as a military program called "ARPANET," Its in only one respect. Because obscene speech may be which was designed to enable computers operated by -den banned totally, see Miller, supra, at 18, and §223(a)'s the military, defense contractors, and universities live restriction of "obscene" material enjoys a textual conducting defense-related research to communicate ,ing manifestation separate from that for "indecent" with one another by redundant channels even if some 492 material, the Court can sever the term "or indecent" portions of the network were damaged in a war. While ved from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a) standing. the ARPA.NET no longer exists, it provided an and Pp.37-39. example for the development of a number of civilian gists (i) The Government's argument that its networks that, eventually linking with each other, now ants "significant" interest in fostering the Internet's growth enable tens of millions of people to communicate with rial provides an independent basis for upholding the CDA's one another and to access vast amounts of information t be constitutionality is singularly unpersuasive. The from around the world. The Internet is "a unique and this dramatic expansion of this new forum contradicts the wholly new medium of worldwide human communica- ing factual basis underlying this contention: that the tion.'"} ttal unregulated availability of "indecent" and "patently TheInternet has experienced "extraordinary stic offensive" material is driving people away from the growth."5 The number of"host"computersr-those that for Internet. P.40. store information and relay communications— the 929 F. Supp. 824,affirmed. increased from about 300 in 1981 to approximately the STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, 9,400,000 by the time of the trial in 1996. Roughly nal in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, 60% of these hosts are located in the United States. A's GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, 1., About 40 million people used the Internet at the time of DA filed ars opinion concurring in the judgment in part and trial, a number that is expected to mushroom to 200 dissenting in part,in which REHNQUIST,C.J.,joined. million by 1999. nts Individuals can obtain access to the Internet from are many different sources, generally hosts themselves or )n- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES entities with a host affiliation. Most colleges and ive universities provide access for their students and ise No. 96-511 faculty; many corporations provide their employees so with access through an office network; many is JANET RENO,ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE communities and local libraries provide free access; N. UNITED STATES, ET AL., and an increasing number of storefront "computer 36. APPELLANTS coffee shops" provide access for a small hourly fee. nd Several major national "online services" such as its AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES America Online, CompuServe, the Microsoft Network, ins UNION ET AL. and Prodigy offer access to their own extensive propri- en etary networks as well as a link to the much larger nd ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT resources of the Internet. These commercial online n" FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA services had almost 12 million individual subscribers at ip, (June 26, 19971 the time of trial. of Anyone with access to the Internet may take advan- 'or JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. tage of a wide variety of communication and :a_ At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory information retrieval methods. These methods are ly provisions enacted to protect minors from "indecent" constantly evolving and difficult to categorize and "patently offensive" communications on the precisely. But, as presently constituted, those most le Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and relevant to this case are electronic mail ("z-mail"), q. importance of the congressional goal of protecting automatic mailing list services ("mail exploders," (e children from harmful materials, we agree with the sometimes referred to as "listservs"), "newsgroups," ;ir three-judge District Court that the statute abridges "the "chat rooms," and the "World Wide Web." All of these to freedom of speech" protected by the First methods can be used to transmit tear, most can it Amendment.) transmit sound, pictures, and moving video images. Daily Appellate Report =ridav, ure _. . 1997 Taken together, these tools constitute a unique medium services. —�no\kn to its users as "cyberspace located in no From the publishers' point of view, it constitutes a particular geographical location 'out available to vast platform from which to address and hear from a anyone. anywhere in the world, with access to the world-wide audience of miilions of readers, viewers, Internet. researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization E-mail enables an individual to send an electronic with a computer connected to the Internet can message—generally akin to a note or letter—to another "publish" information. Publishers include government individual or to a croup of addressees. The message is agencies, educational institutions, commerciai entities, generally stored electronically, sometimes waiting for advocacy groups, and individuais.9 Publishers may the recipient to check her "mailbox" and sometimes either make their material available to the entire pool making its receipt known through some type of prompt. of Internet users, or confine access to a selected group, A mail exploder is a sort of e-mail group. Subscribers such as those willing to pay for the privilege. "No can send messages to a common a-mail address, which single organization controls any membership in the then forwards the message to the group's other Web, nor is there any centralized point from which subscribers. Newsgroups also serve groups of regular individual Web sites or services can be blocked from participants, but these postings may be read by others the Web,"10 as well. There are thousands of such groups, each serving to foster an exchange of information or opinion Sexually E.vplicit Material on a particular topic running the gamut from, say, the Sexually explicit material on the Internet includes music of Wagner to Balkan politics to AIDS prevention text, pictures, and chat and "extends from the modestly to the Chicago Bulls. About 100,000 new messages are titillating to the hardest-core."I I These tiles are posted every day. In most newsgroups, postings are created, named, and posted in the same manner as automatically purged at regular intervals. In addition to material that is not sexually explicit, and may be posting a message that can be read later, two or more accessed either deliberately or unintentionally during individuals wishing to communicate more immediately the course of an imprecise search. "Once a provider can enter a chat room to engage in real-time dialogue posts its content on the Internet, it cannot prevent that —in other words, by typing messages to one another content from entering any community."1– Thus, for that appear almost immediately on the others'computer example, screens. The District Court found that at any given "when the UCR/Califomia Museum of time "tens of thousands of users are engaging in Photography posts to its Web site nudes by conversations on a huge range of subjects." It is "no Edward Weston and Robert Mapplethorpe to exaggeration to conclude that the co tent on the announce that its new exhibit will travel to Internet is as diverse as human thought."/ Baltimore and New York City,those images are The best known category of communication over the available not only in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Internet is the World Wide Web, which allows users to and New York City, but also in Cincinnati, search for and retrieve information stored in remote Mobile, or Beijing—wherever Internet users computers, as well as, in some cases, to communicate live. Similarly, the safer sex instructions that back to designated sites. In concrete terms, the Web Critical Path posts to its Web site, written in consists of a vast number of documents stored in street language so that the teenage receiver can different computers all over the world. Some of these understand them, are available not just,in documents are simply files containing information. Philadelphia, but also in Provo and Prague."I� However, more elaborate documents, commonly known Some of the communications over the Internet that as Web "pages," are also prevalent. Each has 'ts own originate in foreign countries are also sexually address—"rather like a telephone number."15 Web explicit.14 pages frequently contain information and sometimes Though such material is widely available, users allow the viewer to communicate with the page's (or seldom encounter such content accidentally. "A "site's") author. They generally also contain "links" to document's title or a description of the document will other documents created by that site's author or to other usually appear before the document itself . . . and in , (generally) related sites. Typically, the links are either many cases the user will receive detailed information blue or underlined text—sometimes images. about a site's content before he or she need take the Navigating the Web is relatively straightforward. A step to access the document. Almost all sexually user may either type the address of a known page or explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the enter one or more keywords into a commercial "search content."15 For that reason, the "odds are slim" that engine" in an effort to locate sites on a subject of user would enter a sexually explicit site by accident.l� interest. A particular Web page may contain the infor- Unlike communications received by radio or television, mation sought by the "surfer," or, through its links, it "the receipt of information on the Internet requires a may be an avenue to other documents located anywhere series of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed on the Internet. Users generally explore a given Web than merely turning a dial. A child requires some page, or move to another, by clicking a computer sophistication and some ability to read to retriev "mouse" on one of the page's icons or links. Access to material and thereby to use the Internet unattended."1� most Web pages is freely available, but some allow Systems have been developed to help parents control access only to those who have purchased the right from the material that may be available on a home computer a commercial provider. The Web is thus comparable, with Internet access. A system may either limit a from the readers' viewpoint, to both a vast library computer's access to an approved list of sources that including millions of readily available and indexed have been identified as containing no adult material, it publications and a sprawling mall offering goods and may block designated inappropriate sites, or it may 997 Friday, lune _7, 1QQ7 Daily Appellate Report 8137 res a attempt to block messages containing identifiable of Internet content providers." :bid. (finding objectionable features. "Although�m - g' parental control 107). r. software currently can screen for certain suggestive niowords or for }mown sexually explicit sites, t cannot ition now screen for sexually explicit can images. Never- The Teiecommunicationls Act of 1996, Pub. r Hent theless, the evidence indicates that "a reasonably 104, 110 Stat. 56, was an unusually important effective method by which parents can prevent their hies. legislative enactment. As stated on the first of its 103 children from accessing sexually explicit and other ages, its may pages, primary purpose was to reduce regulation pool material which parents may believe is ipappropriate for and encourage 'the rapid deployment of new oup, their children will soon be available."I y telecommunications tecltnolosies." The major compo- "No nents of the statute have nothing to do with the the Age Verification Intemet; they were designed to promote competition in hick The problem of age verification differs for different the local telephone service market, the multichannel uses of the Internet. The District Court categorically video market, and the market for over-the-air tom determined that there "is no effective way to determine broadcasting. The Act includes seven Titles, six of the identity or the age of a user who is accessing which are the product of extensive committee hearings material through I?ail, mail exploders, newsgroups and the subject of discussion in Reports prepared by ides or chat rooms. The Government offered no Committees of the Senate and the House of :stly evidence that there was a reliable way to screen Representatives. By contrast, Title V—known as the are recipients and participants in such fora for age. "Communications Decency Act of 1996" (CDA}-- itloreover, even if it were technologically feasible to contains provisions that were either added in executive block minors' access to newsgroups and chat rooms e were after the hearings ere concluded or as incontaining that discussions of art, politics or other subjects amendments offered during floor debate on the lecisla- g that potentially elicit "indecent"or"patently offensive" tion. An amendment offered in the Senate was the:hat contributions, it would not be possible to block their source of the two statutory provisions challenged in for access to that material and "still allow them access to this case.24 They are informally described as the the remaining content, even if the overwhelming majority of that content was not indecent."21 "indecent transmission"provision and the "patently offensive display"provision.- Technology exists by which an operator of a Web The first, 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a) (Supp. 1997), site may condition access on the verification of prohibits the knowing transmission of obscene or requested information such as a credit card number or indecent messages to any recipient under 18 years of an adult password. Credit card verification is only age.It provides in pertinent part: feasible, however, either in connection with a "(a) Whoever— commercial transaction in which the card is used, or by "(1) in interstate or foreign communications— payment to a verification agency. Using credit card Possession as a surrogate for proof of age would impose "(B)by means of a telecommunications device costs on non-commercial Web sites that would require knowingly— many of them to shut down. For that reason, at the time "(i) makes, creates,or solicits, and of the trial, credit card verification was "effectively "(ii) initiates the transmission of, unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content "any comment, request. suggestion, proposal, providers." Id., at 846 (finding 102). Moreover, the image, or other communication which is ob- il y t imposition of such a requirement "would completely scene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the the communication is under 13 years of age, !rs resources (g obtain one from accessing any blocked regardless of whether rite maker of such 'A material."- communication placed the call or initiated the ,ill Commercial pornographic sites that charge their communication; users for access Rave assigned them in o passwords as a , method of age verification. The record does not contain "(2) knowingly permits any telecommu- he auy evidence conceming tite reliability -` these nications facility under his control to be used he tcclinolo ies. Even if ly g passwords are effective for for any activity prohibited by paragraph (i) he commercial purveyors of indecent material, the District with the intent that it be used for such activity, Court found that an adult password requirement would "shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned 19 impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites, not more than two years, or both." both because they would discourage users from The second provision, §223(d), prohibits the a accessing their sites and because the cost of creating knowing sending -ins or displaying a p > of patently offensive .d and maintaining suh screening systems would be messages in a manner that is available to a person "beyond their reach." 3 under 18 years of age. It provides: 1C in sum, the District Court found: ` � "(d) Wltoever- 7 "Even if credit card verification or adult "(1) in interstate or torei;n communications A password verification were implemented, the knowinak— "r Government presented no testimony as to how "(A) uses an interactn•c computer servic: to such systems could ensure that the user of the a specitic person or persons under 18 It password or credit card is in fact over 18. The years of age. or burdens imposed by credit card verification and tt adult password verification on systems make the (B) uses any inte:ractn-e computer service to Y elfrcnvely unavailable to .t substantial number display in a in a atLtble to a person under l8 years S1-8 Daily Aooellaty Retort I -tday. June -'7,. 1997 any comment. request, su_gestion, proposal, offensive" and "in context" in image. or other communication that. in context, �.ag,� '-=3(d)(1) were so depicts or describes, in terms paten[ly offensive - e that ^riminal enr'orcement of either section as measured by contemporary community would violate the "fundamental constitutional principle" of "simpie fairness," id,, at 361, and the c standards, sexual or excretory activities or specific protections of the First and rtfth Amendments, organs, reg l ardless of whether the user of such id., at 358. He found no state ory basis for the t �.. service placed the call or initiated the Government's argument that the challenged provisions ! communication; or would be applied only to "pornographic" materials, t "(2) knowingly permits any noting chat, unlike obscenity, "indecency has not been c telecommunications facility under such person's defined to exclude works of serious literary, artistic, control to be used for an activity prohibited by political or scientific value."Id., at 863. Moreover, the paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for Government's claim that the work must be considered ` such activity, patently offensive"in context" was itself vague because c "shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned the relevant context might "refer to, among ocher ! r not more than two years, or both." things, the nature of the communication as a whole, the The breadth of these prohibitions is qualified by two affirmative defenses. See §223(e)(5).-6 time of day it was conveyed, the medium used, the One covers identity of the speaker, or whether or not it is those who take "good faith, reasonable, effective, and accompanied by appropriate warnings."Id., at 864. He c appropriate actions" to restrict access by minors to the believed that the unique nature of the Internet agora- r prohibited communications. §223(e)(5)(A). The other vated the vagueness of the statute.Id., at 865,n. 97 covers those who restrict access to covered material by Judge Daizell's review of "the special attributes of requiring certain designated forms of age proof, such Internet communication" disclosed by the evidence as a verified credit card or an adult identification convinced him that the First Amendment denies ic number or code. §223(e)(5)(B). Congress the power to regulate the content of protected t III speech on the Internet. Id., at 867. His opinion i by t On explained at length why he believed the Act would February 8 1996 r , , immediately after the abridge significant protect d speech, particularly President signed the statute, 20 plain tiffs227 filed suit noncommercial speakeers. while "(p]erveI y, t against the Attorney General of the United States and commercial pornographers would remain relatively the Department of Justice challenging the unaffected." Id., at 879. He construed our cases as constitutionality of §§223(a)(1) and 223(d). A week requiring a "medium-specific"aanalysis later, based on his conclusion that the term "indecent" of the regulation of mass communication, id.. t873, f was too vague to provide the basis for a criminal and concluded that the Internet—as "the most prosecution, District Judge Buckwalter entered a participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., i temporary restraining order against enforcement of at 883—is entitled to "the 3highest protection from t §223(a)(1)(B)(ii) insofar as it applies to indecent govemmentalintrusion,"ibid. 0' communications. A seyd suit was then filed b 27 The Gov- additional plaintiffs.- the two cases were ernmeniudf from oenforcf the ntgrictthe urtprohibitions ohib do sG�n consolidated, and a three-judge Dist, ct Court was §223(a)(1)(B) insofar as they relate to "indecent" t convened pursuant to §561 of the Act.- After an evi- communications, but expressly dentiary hearing, that Court entered a preliminary Government's right to investigateand reserves the prosecute the i t injunction against enforcement of both of the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited t challenged provisions. Each of the three judges wrote a therein. The injunction against enforcement of , separate opinion, but their judgment was unanimous. §§223(d)(1) and (2) is unqualified because those , Chief Judge Sloviter doubted the strength of the provisions contain no separate reference to obscenity or Government's interest in regulating "the vast range of child pornography. online material covered or potentially covered by the The Government appealed under the Act's special CDA," but acknowled;ed that the interest was review provisions, §561, 110 Stat. 142-143, and we "compelling" with respec[ to some of that material. 929 noted probable jurisdiction, see 519 U. S. _ (1996). F. Supp., at 853. She con:luded, nonetheless, that the In its appeal, the Government argues that the District I statute "sweeps more br-)adly than necessary and Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the , thereby chills the expression of adults" and that the First Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth terms "patently offensive" and "indecent" were Amendment because it is vague. While we discuss the "inherently vague." Id., at 854. She also determined vagueness of the CDA because of its relevance to the , that the affirmative defenses were not "technologically First Amendment overbreadth inquiry, we conclude t or economically feasible for most providers," that the judgment should be affirmed without reaching specifically considering and rejecting an argument that the Fifth Amendment issue. We begin our analysis by providers could avoid liability by "tagging" their mate- reviewing the principal authorities on which the rial in a manner that would allow potential readers to Government relies. Then, after describing the .over- screen out unwanted transmissions. Id., at 856. Chief breadth of the CDA, we consider the Government's Judge Sloviter also rejected the Government's sugges- specific contentions, including its submission that we tion that the scope of the statute could be narrowed by save portions of the statute either by severance or by construing it to apply only to commercial pomo- fashioning judicial limitations on the scope of its cover- graphers. Id.. at 854-855. age Mudge Buckwalter concluded that the word "indecent" in §223(a)(1)(B) and the terms "patently Friday. June 27, loo- Daily- .-appellate Report �l?Q IV indecent speech ,vas so broad that its order had ,o be In ar.uing for reversal, the Government contends set aside even if the broadcast at issue was unprotected: that the CDA is olainiv constitutional under three of and (_1 that since the recordin: was not obscene, the our prior decisions: (1) Ginsberg v. Nell. York. 390 First Amendment forbade any aorideernent of the richt U. S. 629 (1968); (2) FCC v. Pacifica Forutdation, 438 to broadcast it on the radio. ` U. S. 726 (1978): and (3)Rental v. P!a1•ti,71C :l:ean•es, In the portion of the !ead opinion not ioined by Jus- Inc.. 475 U. S. 41 (1986). A close look at these cases, tices Poweil and Blackmun. the piuraiity stated that the however, raises—rather than relieves—doubts First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental concerning the constitutionality of the CDA. regulation that depends on the content of speech. Id.. at 1 In Ginsberg, we upheld the constitutionality of a 72-743. Accordingly , the availability of constitutional New York statute that prohibited selling to minors protection for a vulgar and offensive monologue that under 17 years of age material that was considered was not obscene depended on tl;e context of the broad- obscene as to them even if not obscene as to adults. We cast. id., at 744-748. Relying on the premise that "of rejected the defendant's broad submission that "the all forms of communication" broadcasting had received scope of the constitutional freedom of expression the most limited First .amendment protection. id., at secured to a citizen to read or see material concerned 748-749, the Court concluded that the ease with which with sex cannot be made to depend on ,whether the children may obtain access to broadcasts. "coupled citizen is an adult or a minor." 390 U. S., at 636. In with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg," justified rejecting that contention, we relied not only on the special treatment of indecent broadcasting. Id., at 7-49– State's independent interest in the well-being of its 750. ` iyouth, but also on our consistent recognition of the As with the New York statute at issue in Ginsberg principle that "the parents' claim to authority in their there are significant differences between the order up- own household to direct the rearing ggf their children is held in Pacifrca and the CDA.First, the order in Pacif- basic in the structure of our society."jI In four ica. issued by an agency that had been regulating radio important respects, the statute upheld in Ginsberg was stations for decades, targeted a specific broadcast that narrower than the CDA. First, we noted in Ginsberg represented a rather dramatic departure from tradi- that "the prohibition against sales to minors does not tional program content in order to designate v,,hen— bar parents who so desire from purchasing the rather than whether—it would be permissible to air magazines for their children." Id., at 639. Under the such a program in that particular medium. The CDA's CDA, by contrast, neither the parents' consent—nor broad categorical prohibitions are not limited to even their participation—in the co�munication would particular times and are not dependent on any evalua- avoid the application of the statute. Second, the New tion by an agency familiar with the unique characteris- York statute applied only to commercial transactions, tics of the Internet. Second, unlike the CDA, the id., at 647, whereas the CDA contains no such limita- Commission's declaratory order was not punitive; we tion.Third, the New York statute cabined its definition expressly refused to decide whether the indecent of material that is harmful to minors with the require- broadcast "would justify a criminal prosecution."Id..at ment that it be "utterly without redeeming social 750. Finally. the Commission's order applied to a importance for minors." Id., at 646. The CDA fails to medium which as a matter of history had "received the provide us with any definition of the term"indecent"as most limited First Amendment protection." id., at 748. used in §223(a)(1) and, importantly, omits any in large part because warnings could not adequately requirement that the "patently offensive" material protect the listener from unexpected program content. covered by §223(d) lack serious literary, artistic, politi- The Internet, however. has no comparable history. cal, or scientific value. Fourth, the New York statute Moreover, the District Court found that the risk of defined a minor as a person under the age of 17, encountering- indecent material by accident is remote whereas the CDA, in applying to all those under 18 because a series of affirmative steps is required to years, includes an additional year of those nearest access specific material. majority. In Renton, vve upheld a zoning ordinance that kept In Pacifica, we upheld a declaratory order of the adult movie theatres out of residential neighborhoods. Federal Communications Commission,holding that the The ordinance was aimed. not at the content of the broadcast of a recording of a 12–minute monologue films shown in the theaters, but rather at tiie "second- entitled "Filthy Words"that had previously been deliv- ary effects"—such as crime and deteriorating property - ered to a live audience "could have been the subject of values---that&ese theaters fostered: It is th(el sec- administrative sanctions." 438 U. S., at 730 (internal ondary effect which these zonin g ordinances auempt to f quotations omitted). The Commission had found that avoid. not the dissemination c "offensive" speech."- the repetitive use of certain words referring to excretory 475 U. S., at 49 (quoting Yorntg v. ;lmerican :tlini or sexual activities or organs "in an afternoon Theatres. Inc•.. 427 U. S. 50, 71, n. 34 (1976)). Ac- broadcast when children are in the audience was cording to the Government. the CDA is constitutional patently offensive" and concluded that the monologue because it constitutes a sort of "cyberzonine- on the was indecent "as broadcast." Id., at 735. The respon- Internet. But the CUA applic,, broadly to the entire dent did not quarrel with the finding that the afternoon universe of cvberspace. And the purpose of the CDA is broadcast was patently offensive, but contended that it to protect children from the primary effects of was not "indecent" within the meaning of the relevant "indecent"and "p;ucntiv ottcnsive" ;peech. rather than statutes because it contained no prurient appeal. Alter any ":econdaiNN.effect of such speech. Thus, the CDA rejecting respondent's statutory arguments, we is a content-based blanket restriction on speech. and. as confronted its two constitutional arguments: (1) that such, cannot he "properly analyzed as a torm of gime. the Commission's construction of its authority to brut Place. ;ind manner regulation." 475 U. S.. It 1t, See Daily .ypnellate Report 7- June —,-- . ;997 also 3oos at:b_• :gj 7 . S. =1 ;^ I93S i iiai-it mediwn requires the listener to take affirmative C"Regulations that ;ecus on the direct impact of speech ;tens to receive the communication." Id., at 127-128. on its audience-' are not properly ar.alvzed ,ander "Placing a telephone call." ,ve continued. "is not the Renton); Forsirh Cjunt)• v. ;VatiottuliSr;t•/�,l enre rt. 505 same as turning on a radio and bein_z taken by surprise U. S. 123. 134 (199_) ("Listeners`reaction to speech is b,; an indecent message."Id.. at 129 not a content-neutral basis for reguiation'•). Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when ._ T'itese precedents, then, surely do not require us to Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast uphold the CDA and are fully consistent %vith the spectrum. the Internet can -hardly be considered a application of the most stringent review of its provi- "scarce" expressive commodity. It provides relatively Bions. unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all V kinds. The Government estimates that "[a]s many as 40 million people use the Internet today, and that`inure is In Sourheastern Promotions. Ltd. v. Can-ad, 420 U. expected to grow to 200 million by 1999."�'" This S. 546, 557 (1975), we observed that "[ejach medium dynamic, multifaceted category of communication in- of expression . . . may present its own problems."Thus, cludes not only traditional print and news services, but some of our cases have recognized special justifications also audio, video, and still images, as well as interac- for regulation of the broadcast media that are not appii- live, real-time dialogue. Through the use of chat cable to other speakers, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. rooms, any person with a phone line can become a v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). In these cases. the could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web Court relied on the history of extensive government pages, mail exploders, w and nesgroups, the same regulation of the broadcast medium, see, c--.. Red individual can become a pamphlereer. As the District Lion, 395 U. S., at 399-400; the scarcity of available Court found, "the content on the Internet is as diverse frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner as human thought." 929 F.Supp., at 842 (finding 74). Broadcasting System,Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 637— We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no 638 (1994); and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Com- basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment j nuinicariats of Cal.. Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 1'_8 scrutiny that should be applied to this medium. (1989). Those factors are not present in cyberspace.Neither V1 before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it vast democratic fora of the Internet been subject to the violates the Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities type of government supervision and 33 gulation that has concerning the scope of its coverage render it problem- attended the broadcast industry. Moreover, the atic for purposes of the First Amendment. For instance, Internet is not as "invasive" as radio or television. The each of the two parts of the CDA uses a different lin- District Court specifically found that guistic form. The firstuses the word "indecent," 47 "[cjommunications over the Internet do not 'invade' an U. S. C.A. §223(a) (Supp. 1997), while the second individual's home or appear on one's computer screen speaks of material that "in context, depicts or de- unbidden. Users seldom encounter content 'by scribes,in terms patently offensive as measured by con- accident."' 929 F. Supp., at 844 (finding 88). It also temporary community standards, sexual or excretory found that "[ajlmost all sexually explicit images areactivities or organs," §2�3(d). Given the absence of a preceded by warnings as to the content," and cited definition of either term�a this difference in language testimony that "'odds are slim' that a user would come will provoke uncertainty among speakers about how across a sexually explicit sight by accident."lbid. the two standards relate to each other36 and just what We distinguished Pacifica in Sable, 492 U. S., at they mean.37 Could a speaker confidently assume that 128, on just this basis. In Sable, a company engaged in a serious discussion about birth control practices, the business of offering sexually oriented prerecorded telephone messages (popularly known as "dial homosexuality, tlle First Amendment issues raised by -a-porn") the Appendix to our Pacifica opinion, or the challenged the constitutionality of an amendment to consequences of prison rape would not violate the the Communications Act that imposed a blanket CDA? This uncertainty undermines the likelihood that prohibition on indecent as well as obscene interstate the CDA has been carefully tailored to the congressio- commercial telephone messages. We held that the nal goal of protecting minors from potentially harmful statute was constitutional insofar as it applied to materials. obscene messages but invalid as applied to indecent The vagueness of the CDA is a matter of special messages. In attempting to justify the complete ban and concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a content- criminalization of indecent commercial telephone based regulation of speech. Tile vagueness of such a messages, the Government relied on Pacifica, arguing regulation raises special First Amendment concerns that the ban was necessary to prevent children from because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. gaining access to such messages. We agreed that "there See, e.g.• Gentile v. State Ba of Nev.. 501 U. S. 1030, is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and 1048-1051 (1991).Second, the CDA is a criminal stat- psychological well-being of minors" which extended to ute. In addition to the opprobrium and stigma of a shielding them from indecent messages that arc not criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators with obscene by adult standards, 492 U. S., at 126, but penalties including up to two years in prison for each distinguished our "emphatically narrow holding" in act of violation. The severity of criminal sanctions may Pacifica because it did not involve s complete ban and well cause speakers to remain silent rather than corn- because it involved a diff nt medium of municate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and communication, id., at 127. `' i n: d ,ha: "the images. See. e.g., Donibrowski v. Pfister. 380 U. S. i s 997 Friday, June :7. 1997 Daily .-appellate Report 311 z tative 479, 494 (1965). As a practical matter, this increased are essentially ones ofJacr.39 d _128 deterrent effect, coupled with the "risk of discrim- in contrast to :hillier and our other previous cases. it th- inatory enforcement" of vague regulations, poses the CDA thus presents a greater threat of censoring ] pri ,renter First Amendment concerns than those impli- speech that, in `act, fails outside the statutes scope. cated by the civil regulation reviewed in Denver ,Area Given the vague contours of the coverage of the statute, vhen Ed. Telecommunications Consortium,Inc. v. FCC518 it unquestionabiv silences some speakers .hose feast U. S._(1996). messa, -'es would be entitled to constitutional protection. !d a The Government argues that the statute is no more That danger provides further reason for insisting that .vely vague than the obscenity standard this Court estab- the statute not be overly broad. The CDA's burden on ,f all lished in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973). But protected speech cannot be justified if it could be avoid- s 40 that is not so. In Miller, this Court reviewed a criminal ed by a more carefully drafted statute. re is conviction against a commercial vendor who mailed This brochures containing pictures of sexually explicit VII in- activities to individuals who had not requested such We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision but materials. Id., at 18. Having srnlggled for some time to that the First Amendment requires when ' statute rac- establish a definition of obscenity, we set forth in regulates the content of speech. In order to dem' minors chat Miller the test for obscenity that controls to this dav: access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA tea "(a) whether the average person, applying effectively suppresses a large amount of speecii that n it contemporary community standards would find adults have a constitutional right to receive and to yeb that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the address to one another. That burden on adult speech is tme prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts unacceptable if less restrictive altematives would be' at riot or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose :rse conduct specifically defined by the applicable that the statute was enacted to serve. 74) state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a In evaluating the free speecii rights of adults, we no whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, have made it perfectly clear that "[slexual expression ent or scientific value." ld., at 24 (internal which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the t quotation marks and citations omitted). First Amendment." Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. See also Because the CDA's "patently offensive" standard (and, Carey v. Population Sen ices l�rt7 431 U. S. 678. 701 we assume arguendo, its synonymous "indecent" stan- (1977) ("(Wlhere obscenity is not involved, we have it dard) is one part of the three-prong Miller test, the consistently held that the fact that protected speech ies Government reasons, it cannot be unconstitutionally may be offensive to some does not justifv its m_ vague' suppression"). Indeed, Pacifica itself admonished that =e, The Government's assertion is incorrect as a matter "the fact that society may find speech offensive is not a n_ of fact. The second prong of the Miller test—the sufficient reason for suppressing it."438 U. S., at 745. 47 purportedly analogous standard—contains a critical It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the nd requirement that is omitted from the CDA: that the governmental interest in protecting children from le_ proscribed material be "specifically defined by the harmful materials. See Gi17sberg, 390 U. S.. at 639; n- applicable state law." This requirement reduces the Pacifica, 438 U. S., at 749. But that interest does not ry vagueness inherent in the open-ended tens "patently justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech a offensive" as used in the CDA. Moreover, the Miller addressed to adults. As we have explained. the ,e definition is limited to "sexual conduct," whereas the Government may not "reducfel the adult population w CDA extends also to include (1) "excretory activities" . . . to . . . only what is fit for children." Denier. 518 at as well as (2) "organs" of both a sexual and excretory U. S., at _ (slip op., at 29) (internal quotation mark nature. at omitted) (quoting s Sable. 49_' U. S., at I?S)•4 S, The Government's reasoning is also flawed. Just be- "(Rlegardless of the strength of the E!overntnent's Y cause a definition including three limitations is not interest" in protecting children. "(dile lege! of e vague, it does not follow that oe of those limitations, discourse reacliine a mailbox simpiy cannot be limited e standing by itself, is not vague.31 Each of Miller's ad- to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.-- Eo(,er [ ditional two prongs--(1) that, taken as a whole, the v. Youngs Drag Products Corp.. 463 U. S. 60. 1-7- material appeal to the "prurient" interest, and (2) that (1983). 1 it "lac(k] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific The District Court was correct to conclude that the value"--critically limits the uncertain sweep of the CDA effectively resembles the ban on "dial-a-porn" 1 obscenity definition. The second requirement is invalidated in Sable. 929 F. Supp•. at 854. In Sable. particularly important because, unlike the "patently 492 U. S., at 129, this Court rejected the argument that t offensive" and "prurient interest" criteria, it is not we should defer to the congressional judgment that judged by contemporary community standards. See nothing less than a total ban would be effective in Pope v. Illinois. 481 U. S. 497, 500 (1987). This preventing enterprisin_ vounQsters from gaining access "societal value" requirement, absent in the CDA, to indecent communications. Sable thus made clear allows appellate courts to impose some limitations and that the mere fact that a statutory regulation of speech regularity on the definition by setting, as a matter of was enacted for the important purpose or prot(�ctine law, a national floor for socially redeeming value. The children from exposure to sexually explicit m_terill Government's contention that courts will be able to does not foreclo,e inquiry mw its '-ali iii- ` `•s ,,e give such legal limitations to the CDA's standards is pointed out last Term, that inquiry ealbodir, .:n "•��'rr belied by Mille,•'s own rationale for having juries archin_ commitment" to ni;ti:e sure that Ims detcrTnine whether material is "pate;tty offensive" designed its SiatUle to accomplish is purpose ithout �-' according to community standards: that such questions imposing an unnecessarily creat restriction on 51�= Daily .appellate Report ::day. June ', . 1997 Denver. �,13 U. S., at siip op., at i 1). value the message may contain and ;etzardless of ;he C In arguing that DA does not so diminish adult parental approval. it is at least ciear that the strength of communication. the Government relies on the incorrect the Government's interest in protecting minors is not factual premise that prohibiting a transmission when- equally strong throughout ;he coverage of this broad i ever it is sown that one of its recipients is a minor statute. Under the CDA, a parent allowing her 17-year- would not interfere %vith adult-to-adult communication. old to use the family computer to obtain information on The findings of the District Court make clear that this the Intemet that she, in her parental judgment, deems premise is untenable. Given the size of the potential appropriate could face a lengthy prison tetra. See 47 audience for most messages, in the absence of a viable U. S. C.A. §223(a)(2) (Supp. 1997). Similarly, a age verification process,-the sender must be charged parent who sent his 17-year-old college freshman infor- with knowing that one or more minors will likely view mation on birth control via e-mail' could be incar- it. Knowledge that, for instance, one or more members cerated even though neither he, his child, nor anvone of a 100-person chat group will be minor—and in their home community, found the material therefore that it would be a crime to send the group an "indecent"or"patently offensive." if the college town's indecent message—would surely burden community thought otherwise. - communication among adults.42 The breadth of this content-based restriction of The District Court found that at the time of trial speech imposes an especially heavy burden on the existing technology did not include any effective Government to explain why a less restrictive provision method for a sender to prevent minors from obtaining would not be as effective as the CDA. It has not done access to its communications on the Internet without so. The arguments in this Court have referred to also denying access to adults. The Court found no possible alternatives such as requiring that indecent effective way to determine the age of a user who is material be "tagged" in a way that facilitates parental accessine material through e-mail, mail exploders, control of material coming into their homes, making newsgroups, or chat rooms. 929 F. Supp., at 845 exceptions for messages with artistic or educational (findings 90-94). As a practical matter, the Court also value, providing some tolerance for parental choice, found that it would be prohibitively expensive for and regulating some portions of the Internet—such as noncommercial—as well as some commercial— commercial web sites—differently than others, such as speakers who have Web sites to verify that th ' users chat rooms. Particularly in the light of the absence of are adults. Id., at 845-848 (findings 95-116). These any detailed findings by the Congress, or even hearings j limitations must inevitably curtail a significant amount addressing the special problems of the CDA, we are I` of adult communication on the Internet. By contrast. persuaded that the CDA is not narrowly tailored if that the District Court found that "[d]espite its limitations, requirement has any meaning at all. currently available user-based software suggests that a reasonably effective method by which parents can VIII prevent their children from accessing sexually explicit In an attempt to curtail the CDA's facial over- and other material which parents may believe is breadth, the Government advances three additional inappropriate for their children will soon be widely arguments for sustaining the Act's affirmative prohibi- available."Id., at 842 (finding 73) (emphases added). tions: (1) that the CDA is constitutional because it The breadth of the CDA's coverage is wholly leaves open ample "alternative channels" of unprecedented. Unlike the regulations upheld in Gins- communication; (2) that the plain meaning of the Act's berg and Pacifica, the scope of the CDA is not limited "knowledge" and "specific person" requirement to commercial speech or commercial entities. Its open- significantly restricts its permissible applications; and ended prohibitions embrace all nonprofit entities and (3) that the Act's prohibitions are "almost always" individuals posting indecent messages or displaying limited to material lacking redeeming social value. them on their own computers in the presence of The Government first contends that, even though minors. The general, undefined terms "indecent" and the CDA effectively censors discourse on many of the "patently offensive" cover large amounts of Internet's modalities—such as chat groups, nonpomogra hic material with serious educational or newsgroups, and mail exploders—it is nonetheless other value.`�4 Moreover, the "community standards" constitutional because it provides a "reasonable criterion as applied to the Internet means that any opportunity" for speakers to engage in the restricted communication available to a nation-wide audience speech on the World Wide Web. Brief for Appellants will be judged by the standards of the community most 39. This argument is unpersuasive because the CDA likely to be offended by the message.45 The regulated regulates speech on the basis of its content. A "time, subject matter includes any of the seven "dirty words" place, and manner" analysis is therefore inapplicable. used in the Pacifica monologue, the use of which the See Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Government's expert acknowledged could constitute a Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 530, 536 (1980). It is thus felony. See Olsen Test., Tr. Vol. V, 53:16-54:10. It immaterial whether such speech would be feasible on may also extend to discussions about prison rape or the Web (which, as the Government's own expert j safe sexual practices, artistic images that include nude acknowledged, would cost up to 510,000 if the subjects, and arguably the card catalogue of the speaker's interests were not accommodated by an exist- Carnegie Library. ing Web site, not including costs for database manage- For the purposes of our decision, we need neither ment and age verification). The Government's position accept nor reject the Government's submission that the is equivalent to arguing that a statute could ban leaflets First Amendment does not forbid a blanket prohibition on certain subjects as long as individuals are free to on all "indecent" and "patently offensive" messages publish books. In invalidating a number of laws that communicated to a 17-year old—no matter how much banned leatletting on the streets regardless of their Friday. June _7. 1997 Daily At3pellate Report 31 t3 f content—we expiained [hat "one is not to nave the speakers to ernpiov such verification. Accordingiy, ,his f exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate defense would hot significantly narrow the statute's t places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in burden on noncommercial speech. Even with respect to _ some other place." Schneider v. State (Town of Irving- the commercial pornographers that would be protected ton), 308 U. S. 147, 163 (1939). by the defense, the Government failed to adduce any t The Government also asserts that the "knowledge" evidence that these verification techniques actually requirement of both §§223(a) and (d), especially when preclude minors from puling as adults.4, Given that coupled with the "specific child" element found in the risk of criminal sanctions "hovers over each contenj §223(d), saves the CDA from overbreadth. Because provider, like the proverbial sword of Damocles,"4 both sections prohibit the dissemination of indecent the District Court correctly refused to rely on unproven messages only to persons known to be under 18, the future technology to save the statute. The Government Government argues, it does not require transmitters to thus failed to prove that the proffered defensewould "refrain from communicating indecent material to significantly reduce the heavy burden on adult speech adults; they need only refrain from disseminating such produced by the prohibition on offensive displays. materials to persons they 'know to be under 18." Brief We agree with the District Court's conclusion that for Appellants 24. This argument ignores the fact the CDA places an unacceptabiv heavy burden on that most Internet fora including chat rooms, protected speech, and that the defenses do not newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web—are open to constitute the sort of "narrow tailoring" that will save all comers. The Government's assertion that the know- an otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional ledge requirement somehow protects the provision. In Sable, 492 U. S., at 127, we remarked communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even that the speech restriction at issue there amounted to the strongest reading, of the "specific person" "'burn(ing] the house to roast the pig."' The CDA, requirement of §223(d) cannot save the statute. It casting a far darker shadow over free speech, threatens would confer broad powersof censorship, in the form to torch a large segment of the Internet community. of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would- X be discoursers that his 17-year-old child—a "specific At oral argument, the Government relied heavily on person . . . under 18 years of age," 47 U. S. C.A. its ultimate fall-back position: If this Court should §223(d)(1)(A) (Supp. 1997)—would be present. conclude that the CDA is insufficiently tailored, it Finally, we find no textual support for the Govem- urged, we should save the statute's constitutionality by ment's submission that material having scientific, honoring the severability clause, see 47 U. S. C. §608, educational, or other redeeming social value will neces- and construing nonseverable terms narrowly. In only sarily fall outside the CDA's "patently offensive" and one respect is this argument acceptable. "indecent" prohibitions. See also n. 37,supra. A severability clause requires textual provisions that can be severed. We will follow §608's guidance by IX leaving constitutional textual elements of the statute The Government's three remaining arguments focus intact in the one place where they are, in fact, sever- on the defenses provided in §223(e)(5).46'First, relying able. The "indecency" provision, 47 U. S. C.A. on the "good faith, reasonable, effective, and §223(a) (Supp. 1997), applies to "any comment, appropriate actions" provision, the Government request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other suggests that "tagging" provides a defense that saves communication which is obscene or indecent." the constitutionality of the Act. The suggestion (Emphasis added.) Appeilees do not challenge the assumes that transmitters may encode their indecent application of the statute to obscene speech, which, communications in a way that would indicate their whey acknowledge, can be banned totally because it contents, thus permitting recipients to block their enjovs no First Amendment protection. See Miller, 413 reception with appropriate software. It is the U. S., at 18. As set forth by the statute, the restriction requirement that the good faith action must be of "obscene" material enjovs a textual manifestation "effective" that makes this defense illusory. The separate from that for "indecent" material, which we Government recognizes that its proposed screening have held unconstitutional. Therefore, we will sever the software does not currently exist. Even if it did, there is term "or indecent" from the statute, leaving the rest of no way to know whether a poten[ial recipient will §223(a) standing. In no other respect, however, can actually block the encoded material. Without the §223(x) or§223(d) be saved by such a textual surgery. impossible knowledge that every guardian in America The Government also draws on an additional, less is screening for the "tag," the transmitter could not rea- traditional aspect of the CDA's severability clause, 47 sonably rely on its action to be"effective." U. S. C., §608, which asks any reviewing court that For its second and third arguments concerning de- holds the statute facially unconstitutional not to invali- fenses—which we can consider together—the Govern- date the CDA in application to "other persons or mens relies on the latter half of §223(e)(5), which ap- circumstances" that might be constitutionally plies when the transmitter has restricted access by permissible. It further invokes this Court's admonition requiring use of a verified credit card or adult identifi- that, absent "countervailing considerations," a statute cation. Such verification is not only technologically should "be declared invaiid to the extent it reaches too available but actually is used by commercial providers far, but otherwise left intact." Brockett v. Spokane of sexually explicit material. These providers. Arcades, Inc., a72 U. S. 491. 503-504 (1985). There therefore, would be protected by the defense. Under the are two flaws in this argument. findings of the District Court, however, it is not First, the statute that grants our jurisdiction for this economically feasible For most noncommercial expedited review, 47 U. S. C. .\. §561 (Supp. !997), S!T; Daily Appellate Report =ridav,June i997 limits that iurisdic:ional _rant to actions challenging democratic >oc:Lty outweighs any theoretical but the CDA 'bn its face." Consistent %with §56i. the unproven oen.efit of censorship. plaintiffs who brought this suit and the three-judge For the forezoina reasons, the judgment of the pane! that decided it treated it as a facial challenge. %Le district court :s affirmed. have no authority, in this particular posture, to convert It is so ordered. this litigation into an "as-applied" challenge. Nor, liven the vast array of plaintiffs. the range of their expressive activities. and the vagueness of the statute, Footnotes: would it be practicable to limit our holding to a 1. -Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of judicially defined set of specific applications. spec'. Th S.ours ..A -41 ;. The Court made 410 findings,including 356 paragraphs of the Second. one of the "countervailina considerations" parties' stipulation and 54 findings based on evidence received in open mentioned in Brackett is present here. In considering a court.See 929 F.Supp.at 830,n.9.342,n. 15. facial challenge, this Court may impose a limiting con- 3• An acronym for the network developed by the Advanced struction on a statute only if it is "readily susceptible" Research Project Agency. 4. id..at 344(undine n 1). to such a construction. Virginia v. American 5. Id..at 831 (finding 3). Bookseller's Assn., Inc., 484 U. S. 383, 397 (1988). See 6. id..at 835(findine27). also Er_no=nik• v. Jacksonviile, 422 U. S. 205, 216 7 1d..at 842(finding 74). (1975) ("readily subject" to narrowinz construction). S. Id.,at 836(finding 36). 9. "Web publishing is simple enough that thousands of individual The open-ended character of the CDA provides no users Gard small community organizations are usine the Web to publish Guidance whatever for limiting its coverage. their own personal -home paves: the equivalent of individualized This case is therefore unlike those in which we have newsletters about the person or organization, which are available to construed a statute narrowly because the text or other everyone on the web."Id..at 837(finding 42). source of congressional intent identified a clear line 11. Id.,at 838(finding 46). that this Court could draw. Cf., e. Br'ockett, 472 12. Id.,.(finding (finding 82). $•• l_ Ibid.(ending 86). U. S., at 504-505 (invalidating obscenity statute only 13. Ibid.(finding 85). to the extent that word"lust" was actually or effectively 14. Id.,at 848(finding 117). excised from statute); United Stares v. Grace,461 U.S. I5. Id..at 844-845(finding 88). 171, 180-183 (1983) (invalidatin federal statute ban- 16. Ibid. � 17. Id.,at 845(finding 89). nine expressive displays only insofar as it extended to 18. Id.,at 842(finding 72). public sidewalks when clear line could be drawn be- 19. Ibid.(finding 73). tween sidewalks and other grounds that comported 20. Id.. at 845 (finding 90): "An e-mail address provides no authoritative information about the addressee,who may use an e-mail with congressional purpose of protecting the building, alias'or an anonymous remailer.There is also no universal or reliable _grounds, and people therein). Rather, our decision in listing of e-mail addresses and corresponding names or telephone United States v, Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454, numbers,and any such listing would be or rapidly become incomplete. �.. 479, n. 26 (1995), is applicable. In that case, we de- For these reasons.there is no reliable way in many instances for a sender clined to "dra(\.v) one or more lines between categories to know if the e-mail recipient is an adult or a minor. The difficulty of Z e-mail age verification is compounded for mail exploders such as of speech covered by an overly broad statute, when listservs,which automatically send information to all e-mail addresses Congress has sent inconsistent signals as to where the on a senders list.Government expert Dr.Olsen agreed that no current new line or lines should be drawn" because doing so technology could give a spencer assurance that only adults were listed in -involves a far more serious invasion of the legislative a particular mail exploder's mailine lilt." 21. Ibid.(finding 93). domain."4y This Court "will not rewrite a . . . law to 22. Id.,at 8.36((iodine 102). conform it to constitutional requirements." American 23. id..at 847(findings 104-106): Booksellers.484 U. S., at 397.511 "At least some, if not almost all. non-commercial organizations, such as the ACLU. Stop Prisoner Rape or Critical Path AIDS Project. XI regard charging listeners to access their speech as contrary to their goals of making their materials available to a wide audience free of charge. In this Court, though not in the District Court, the . . . . . Government asserts that-in addition to its interest in "There is evidence suggesting that adult users, particularly casual protecting children-its "(ejqually significant" interest web browsers, would be discouraged from retrieving information that in fostering the growth of the Intemet provides an required use of a credit card or password.Andrew Anker testified that HotWired has received many complaints from its members about independent basis for upholding the constitutionality of Hotwired's registration system• which requires only that a member j the CDA. Brief for Appellants 19. The Government supply a name• e-mail address and self-created password. There is apparently assumes that the unregulated availability of concern by commercial content providers that age verification re- quirtments would decrease advertising and revenue because advertisers "indecent" and "patently offensive" material on the depend on a demonstration that the sites are widely available and Internet is driving countless citizens away from the frequently visited." medium because of the risk of exposing themselves or 24. See Exon Amendment No. 1268. 141 Cong. Rec.58120(lune their children to harmful material. 9. 1995). See also id..at S8087. This amendment.as revised,became We find this argument singularly unpersuasive. The §502 of the Communications Act of 1996. 110 Stat. 133.47 U.S.C.A. 4§223(a)-(e)(Supp. 1997). Some Members of the House of Represen- dramatic expansion of this new marketplace of ideas rooves opposed the Exon .Amendment because they thought it "possible contradicts the factual basis of this contention. The for our parents now to child-proof the family computer with these record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has products available in the private sector." They also thought the Senate's been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of approach would"involve the Federal Government spending vast sums of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected.- These Members the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation offered:fit aniendment intended as a substitute for the Exon Amendment, of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with but instead =nacted as an.additional action of the Act entitled"Online the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The Farndy Emro,vermcni."See 110 Stat. 137. 47 U.S.C.A. §230(Supp. `-� interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a 1997): 131 Cana. Rec. H9468-HR-172. No hearings were held on the provitii n< .I;at `, z S. Ren. "to. !(1-1-23(11)951.n.9. After .....,::ter:.. y97 Friday. June 1997 Daik, ADDellate Report Sl l5 the Senate adopted the Sxon amendment. however, its Judiciary Com- therefore mcorzect for the dissent to suggest that the provisions of the tv but miitee did conduct a one-day hearing on"Cybeom and Children." In CDA,even in this narrow area,"are no different from the law we sus. his opening statement at that hearing.Senator Leahy observed: tained in Ginsberg."Post,at 8. Il "it really struck me in your opening statement when you mentioned, 33. C,`. Pacifica Fotmdarion v. FCC. 556 F.2d 9, 36 (CADC �U. Chairman, that it is the first ever hearing. and you are absolutely 1977) (Levanthal, J.,dissenting),rev'd.FCC v.Pacifica Foundation, richt. And yet we had a major debate on the floor, passed legislation 438 U.S. 126 (1978). When Pacfjca was decided. given that radio 'd• overwhelmingly on a subject involving the internal, legislation that stations were allowed to operate only pursuant to federal license, and could dramatically change-some would say even wreak havoc-on the that Congress had enacted legislation prohibiting licensees from Internet. The Senate went in willy-nilly. passed legislation, and never broadcasting indecent speech,there was a risk that members of the radio once had a hearing,never once had a discussion other than an hour or so audience might infer some sort of official or societal approval of whatev- m of on the floor."Cyberpom and Children:The Scope of the Problem.The er was heard over the radio, see 556 F.2d. at 37, n. 18. No such risk Slate of the Technology, and the Need for Congressional Action, attends messages received through the Internet, which is not supervised of the Hearing on S.893 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 104th by any federal agency. open Cons., ist Sess..7-9(1995). 34. Juris.Statement 3(citinb 929 F.Supp.,at 831 (finding 3)). 25. Although the Govenunent and the dissent break §223(d)(1) 35. "Indecent"does not benefit from any textual embellishment at anted into two separate "patently offensive" and "display" provisions, we all. "Patently offensive'is qualified only to the extent that it involves follow the convention of both parties below,as well the District Court's "sexual or excretory activities or organs" taken "in context" and order and opinion. describing§223(d)(1)as one provision. "measured by contemporary community standards." 6. In full,s_ 3(e)(5)provides: 36. See Go:lon-Peret: v. United Stares, 498 U.S. 395. 404 "(5)It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection(a)(I)(B)or(d)of (199 1)("Where Congress includes particular language in one section of this section.or under subsection(a)(2)of this section with respect to the a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act,it is generally use of a facility for an activity under subsection(a)(1)(8)of this section presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate idual that a person-- has erhon- inclusion and exclusion")(internal quotation marks omitted). iblish "(A)has taken.in good faith,reasonable,effective,and appropriate 37. The statute does not indicate whether the"patently offensive" ilized actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors to and"indecent"determinations should be made with respect to minors or de to a communication specified in such subsections,which may involve any the population as a whole.The Government asserts that the appropriate appropriate measures to restrict minors from such communications,in- standard is "what is suitable material for minors." Reply Brief for eluding any method which is feasible under available technology;or Appellants 18.n. 13 (citing Ginsberg Y.New York,390 U.S.629.633 "(B) has restricted access to such communication by requiring (1968)). But the Conferees expressly rejected amendments that would use of a verified credit card, debit account,adult access code,or adult have imposed such a"harmful to minors"standard. See S.Cont. Rep. personal identification number." No. 104-230, p. 189(1996) (S.Conf.Rep.), 143 Cons, Rec. Hl 145, 27. American Civil Liberties Union:Human Rights Watch; Elec- H1165-1166(Feb. 1, 1996). The Conferees also rejected amendments tronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation; that would have limited the proscribed materials to those lacking re- Journalism Education Association: Computer Professionals for Social deeming value.See S.Conf.Rep.,at 189, 142 Cons.Rec,H 1165-1166 Responsibility: National Writers Union; Clarinet Communications (Feb. 1,1996), Corp..Institute for Global Communications;Stop Prisoner Rapt-,AIDS 38. Even though the word"trunk;'standing alone,might refer to Education Global Information System; Bibliobytes: Queer Resources luggage, a swimming suit, the base of a vee, or the long nose of an s no Directory;Critical Path AIDS Project,Inc.;Wildcat Press.Inc.;Declan animal. its meaning is clear when it is one prong of a three-pan -mail McCullagh dba Justice on Campus. Brock Meeks dba Cyberwire description of a species of gray animals. iable Dispatch;John Troyer dba The Safer Sex Page:Jonathan Wallace dba 39. 413 U.S..at 30(Determinations of"what appeals to ihe'pruri- hon The Ethical Spectacle;and Planned Parenthood Federation of America- ant interest'or is'patently offensive....are essentially questions of fact, )late._ Inc. and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to :nder 28• American Library Association: America Online, Inc.: reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 ty of American Booksellers Association, Inc.; American Booksellers States in a single formulation,even assuming the prerequisite consensus h as Foundation for Free Expression; American Society of Newspaper exists"). The CDA, which implements the "contemporary community :sscs Editors. Apple Computer, inc.; Association of American Publishers, standards" language of jWller, thus conflicts with the Conferees'own Trent Inc.: Association of Publishers. Editors and Writers: Citizens Internet assertion that the CDA was intended "to establish a uniform national .d in Empowerment Coalition: Commercial Internet Exchange Association. standard of consent regulation." S.Conf.Rep.,at 191. CompuServe Incorporated: Families Against Internet Censorship. 40. Accord,Butler v,Michigan. 353 U.S.380. 383 (1957)(ban Freedom to Read Foundation, Inc.: Health Sciences Libraries Con- on sale to adults of books deemed harmful to children unconstitutional): sortium. Hotwired Ventures LLC: Interactive Digital Software Sable Communications of Cal., inc. Y. FCC. 492 U.S. 115, 128 Association: Interactive Services Association: Magazine Publishers of (1989) (ban on "dial-a-porn" messages unconstitutional): Bolgcrv. ions, America; Microsoft Corporation: The Microsoft Network. L. L. C.. Youngs Drug Products Corp.,463 U.S.60.73(1983)(ban on mailing National Press Photographers Association. Netcom On-Line Com- of unsolicited advertisement for contraceptives unconstitutional). ;oats munication Services, Inc.; Newspaper Association of America; Opnet. 41. The lack of leeisiative attention to the statute at issue in Sable Inc.. Prodigy Services Company; Society of Professional Journalists: suggests another parallel with this case.Compare 492 U.S.,at 129-130 Wired Ventures,Ltd. s» ("(Alside from conclusory statements during the debates by proponents sual 29. 110 Stat. 142-143,note following 47 U.S.C.A.s_-3(Supp. of the bill, as well as similar assertions in hearings on a substantially that 1991) identical bill theear before....the congressional record presented to us 30. See also 929 F.Su they ear pp..at 877;"Four related characteristics of contains no evidence as to l+pis•effective or ineffective the FCC's most bout Internet communication have a transcendent importance to our shared recent regulations were or might prove to be.... No Congressman or ,iber holding that the CDA is unconstitutional on its race. We explain these Senator purported to present a considered judgment with respect to how e is characteristics in our Findings of fact above, and 1 only rehearse them often or to what extent minors could or would circumvent the rules and re- briefly here. First, the Internet presents very low barriers to entry. have access to dial-a-ppm messages")with n.24,supra. sers Second, these barriers to entry are identical for both speakers and 42. The Government agrees that these provisions are applicable and i listeners. Thud, as a result of these low barriers, astoundingly diverse whenever "a sender transmits a message to more than one recipient, content is available on the Internet. Fourth, the Internet provides knowing that at least one of the specific persons receiving the message is one significan access to all who wish to speak in the medium. and even :t minor."Opposition to Motion to Affirm and Reply to luris.Statement vne creates a relative parity among speakers." According to Judge Dalzell. 4-5•n. 1. these characteristics and the test of the District Court's findings"lead to 43. The Government assens that"itlhere is nothing constitutionally ;an- the conclusion that Congress may not regulate indecency on the Internet suspect about requiring commercial web site operators .., to shoulder ible at all."lhid. Because appellees do not press this argument before this the modest burdens associated with their use." Brief for Appellants 35. tele Court, we do not consider it. Appellees also do not dispute that the As a matter of fact. however, there is no evidence that a "modest bur- ue's Government generally has a compelling interest in protecting minors deny %ouldbeeifective. s of from"indecent"and"patently offensive"speech. 44. Tr:utsmitting ohscenuy and child pnmography,whether via the 1 of 31. 390 U.S., at 639. We quoted from P.inre.. .tl.urirclniarrts. Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both ncrs 321 U.S. 158. 166(194-4):"h is cardinal with us that the custody,carr adults and juveniles. Sec 13 U.S.C. §§1 764-1465 (c-iminalizing ant and nurture of the child reside tint in the parents. whose primary obscenity): §2251 (criminalizing child pornography). In fact, when ine function and freedom include preparation for ohhganons the state can Curimess.vas considering the CDA,the Govennmern expressed its view pp- neither supply nor hinder." that the law was unnecessary because existing laws already authorized the 32. Given the likelihood that many E-mail nansintssions from .m its onitoing efforts to prosecute obscenity, child pornography,and child fi,,r adult to a ininor arc r.niversauons between iainily nienihers. ;i is solicitation. Sce 141 Cunt. Rec. 583.32 (June 14, 19951 .icier from 8146 Daily Appellate Report Friday, June '7. 1997 Kent Markus,Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department oC Justice,to Sen.Leahy). inalizes the display of patently offensive messages or 45. Citing Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye.Inc.v.Hialeah,508 U. images "in a(ny] manner available" to minors S. 520(1993),among other cases,appellees offer an additional reason ("display" provision). §223(d)(1)(B). None Of these why, in their view, the CDA fails strict scrutiny. Because so much provisions purports to keep indecent on f the sexually explicit content originates overseas, theently y argue, the CDA offensive) material away from adults, who have a First cannot be"effective."Brief for Appellees American Library Association et al. 33-34. This argument raises difficult issues regarding the amendment right to obtain this speech. Sable intended,as well as the permissible scope of,extraterritorial application Communications Of Cal.. Inc. V. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, of the CDA.We find it unnecessary to address those issues to dispose of 126 (1989) ("Sexual expression which is indecent but this case• not obscene is protected by the First Amendment"). 46. For the full text of§223(e)(5),see n.26,supra. Thus, the undeniable purpose of the CDA is to 47. Thus, ironically, this defense may significantly protect co-nmercial purveyors of obscene postings while providing little(or no) segregate indecent material on the Internet into certain benefit for transmitters of indecent messages that have significant social areas that minors cannot access. See S. Conf. Ren. No. or artistic value. 104-230, 189 48. 929 F.Supp.,at 855-856. p• (1996) (CDA imposes "access 49. As this Court long ago explained, "It would certainly be restrictions . . , to protect minors from exposure to dangerous if the Legislature could set a net large enough to catch ail indecent material"). possible offenders and leave it to the courts to step inside and say wh could be rightfully be detained and who should be sec at large. Thi nt o The creation Of "adult zones" 15 by n0 means a s novel concept. States have long denied minors access g would, to some extesubstitute the judicial for the leislative to certain establishments frequented by adults.1 States department of the government."United States v.Reese. 92 U.S. 214, have also denied minors access to speech deemed to be 221(1876).In part because of these separation of powers concems,we 1 have held that a severability clause is"an aid merely;not an inexorable "harmful to minors." The Court has previously Sus- command."Dorchy v.Kansas,264 U.S.286,290(1924). tained such zoning laws, but only if'they respect the 50. See also Osborne v.Ohio.495 U.S. 103, 121(1990)(judicial First Amendment rights of adults and minors. That is rewriting of statutes would derogate Congress's "incentive to draft a to say, a zoning law is valid if (i) it does not unduly narrowly tailored law in the first place'. restrict adult access to the material; and (ii) minors have no First Amendment right to read or view the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES banned material. As applied to the Internet as it exists in 1997, the "display"provision and some applications No.96-511 of the "indecency transmission" and "specific person" provisions fail to adhere to the first of these limiting JANET RENO,ATTORNEY GENERAL principles by restricting adults' access to protected OF THE UNITED STATES,ET AL., materials in certain circumstances. Unlike the Court, APPELLANTS however, I would invalidate the provisions only in V. those circumstances. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ET AL. I Our cases make clear that a "zoning" law is valid ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PE.NNSYLVA,t1A speech. If they cannot, the law does more than simply (June 26, 19971 keep children away from speech they have no right to obtain—it interferes with the rights of adults to obtain JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE constitutionally protected speech and effectively "re- joins, concurring in the judgment in part and duces) the adult population . . . to reading only what is dissenting in part. fit for children." Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, I write separately to explain why I view the Commu- 383 (1957). The First Amendment does not tolerate nications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) as little more such interference. See id., at 383 (striking down a than an attempt by Congress to create "adult zones"on 'Michigan criminal law banning sale of books—to the Internet. Our precedent indicates that the creation minors or adults—that contained words or pictures that of such zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite "'tende(d) to . . .corrup(t) the morals of youth"');Sable the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the Communications, supra (invalidating federal law that CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the made it a crime to transmit indecent, but nonobscene, blueprint our prior cases have developed for commercial telephone messages to minors and adults); constructing a "zoning law" that passes constitutional Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, muster. 74 (1983) (striking down a federal law prohibiting the Appellees bring a facial challenge to three mailing of unsolicited advertisements for provisions of the CDA. The first, which the Court contraceptives). If the law does not unduly restrict describes as the "indecency transmission" provision, adults' access to constitutionally protected speech, makes it a crime to knowingly transmit an obscene or however, it may be valid. In Ginsberg v. New York, indecent message or image to a person the sender 390 U. S. 629, 634 (1968), for example, the Court knows is under 18 years old. 47 U. S.C.A. sustained a New York law that barred store owners §223(a)(1)(B) (May 1996 Supp.). What the Court from selling pornographic magazines to minors in part classifies as a single "'patently offensive y dis la because adults could still buy those magazines. display—provision, see ante, at 11. is in reality two separate The Court in Ginsber; concluded that the New provisions. The first of these makes it a crime to York law created a cons[itutionally adequate adult zone knowingly send a patently offensive message or image simply because, on its face, it denied access only to to a specific person under the age of 18 ("specific minors. The Court did not question—and therefore m- necessarily assumed—that an adult zone, once created, person" provision). §223(d)(1)(A). The second tri i ?7 Friday. June 27. 1997 Dailv Appellate Report 4147 or would succeed in oreser^„ing adults' access while F. Supp. 916, 933-93-1 (SDNY 1996), it is not ors denying minors' access to the regulated speech. Before availabie to 211 Web speakers, 929 F. Supp., at 845– :tlyse today, there was no reason to question this assumption, 846, and is just now becoming teciutologically reasible Tst for the Court has previously only considered laws that for chat rooms and USENET newsgroups, Brief for rle operated in the physical world, a world ,hat %vith two Federal Parties 37-38. Gateway technology i1e � is not 15, characteristics that make it possible to create "adult ubiquitous in cyberspace, and because without it ,there rut zones": geography and identity. See Lessig, Reading is no means of age verification," cyberspace still the Constitution in Cyberspace, 45 Emory L.J. 869, remains largely unzoned—and unzoneable. 929 to 886 (1996). A minor can see an adult dance show only F. Supp., at 846; Shea, supra, at 934. User-based if he enters an establishment that provides such zoning is also in its infancy. For it to be effective. (i) foentertainment. And should he attempt to do so, the an agreed-upon code(or"tag") would have to exist; (ii) ss minor will not be able to conceal completely his screening software or browsers with screening identity (or, consequently, his age). Thus, the twi 1O n capabilities would have to be able to recognize the characteristics of geography and identity enable the "tag": and (iii) those programs would have to be widely a establishment's proprietor to prevent children from avaiiable—and widely used—by Internet users. At ss entering the establishment, but to let adults inside. present, none of these conditions is true. Screening's The electronic world is fundamentally different. software"is not in wide use today"and "only a handful Because it is no more than the interconnection of of browsers have screening capabilities." Shea, supra, se s_ electronic pathways, cyberspace allows speakers and at 945-946. There is, moreover, no agreed-upon "tag” listeners to mask their identities. Cyberspace undeni- for those programs to recognize. 929 F. Su at 848; to P g pp., ably reflects some form of geography; chat rooms and Shea,supra, at 945. is Web sites, for example,exist at fixed"locations"on the Although the prospects for the eventual zoning of y Intemet. Since users can transmit and receive the Internet appear promising, I agree with the Court emessages on the Internet without revealing anything that we must evaluate the constitutionality of the CDA about their identities or ages, see Lessig,supra, at 901, as it applies to the Intemet as it exists today. Ante, at s however, it is not currently possible to exclude persons 36. Given the present state of cyberspace, I agree with s from accessing certain messages on the basis of their the Court that the "display" Provision cannot pass identity. muster. Until gateway technology is available iCyberspace differs from the physical world in throughout cyberspace, and it is not in 1997, a speaker another basic way: Cyberspace is malleable. Thus, it is cannot be reasonably assured that the speech he possible to construct barriers in cyberspace and use displays will reach only adults because it is impossible them to screen for identity, making cyberspace more to confine speech to an "adult zone." Thus, the only like the physical world and, consequently, more way for a speaker to avoid liability under the CDA is to amenable to zoning laws. This transformation of refrain completely from using indecent speech. But cyberspace is already underway. Lessig,supra, at 888– this forced silence impinges on the First Amendment 889. Id., at 887 (cyberspace "is moving . . . from a right of adults to make and obtain this speech and, for relatively unzoned place to a universe that is ail intents and purposes, "reduce(s] the adult extraordinarily well zoned"). Internet speakers (users population [on the Internet] to reading only what is fit who post material on the Internet) have begun to zone for children." Butler, 352 U. S., at 383. As a result, cyberspace itself through the use of "gateway" the "display" provision cannot withstand scrutiny. technology. Such technology requires Internet users to Accord,Sable Communications, 492 U. S.. at 126-131; enter information about themselves—perhaps an adult Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S., at identification number or a credit card number—before 73-75. they can access certain areas of cyberspace, 929 The "indecency transmission" and "specific person" F. Supp. 824, 845 (ED Pa. 1996), much like a bouncer provisions present a closer issue, for they are not checks a person's driver's license before admitting him unconstitutional in all of their applications. As dis- i to a nightclub. Internet users who access information cussed above, the "indecency transmission" provision have not attempted to zone cyberspace itself, but have makes it a crime to transmit knowingly an indecent tried to limit their own power to access information in message to a person the sender knows is under 18 years cyberspace, much as a parent controls what her of age. 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)(1)(B) (May 1996 children watch on television by installing a lock box. Supp.). The "specific person" provision proscribes the This user-based zoning is accomplished through the same conduct, although it does not as explicitly require use of screening software (such as Cyber Patrol or the sender to know that the intended recipient of his SurfWatch) or browsers with screening capabilities, indecent message is a minor. §223(d)(1)(A). both of which search addresses and text for keywords Appellant urges the Court to construe the provision to that are associated with "adult" sites and, if the user impose such a knowledge requirement, see Brier for wishes, blocks access to such sites. Id., at 839-842. Federal Parties 25-27, and I would do so. See Edward The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) J. DeBartolo Carp. v. Florida Guif Coast Budditig & project is designed to facilitate user-based zoning by Constr. Trades Council, a85 U. S. 568, 575 (1988) encouraging Internet speakers to rate the content of ("(W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a i their speech using codes recognized by ail screening statute would raise serious constitutional problems. the f programs. Id., at 838-839. Court will construe the statute ,a avoid such problems Despite this progress, the transformation of unless such construction is plainl% contrary to the cyberspace is not complete. Although gateway intent of Coneress"). technology has been available on the World Wide Web So construed, both nrovisions are consntunonal :is �` for some time nosy, id., at 345: Shea \•. Reno. 930 applied to a conversation involyine only 111 adult and iinte e��r;.�. rtCta�' rune _, 997 f=• one or more minors—,,. she;� an aduit ;pecker ,-nes may forthv.i�h log :ri\alid to the extent that it an e-mail knowing the addressee is a minor. ,)r ::ren reaches too "ar. :ut ntttetwise lett intact.• Brockert v, an adult and minor converse b,,- thernsehves or with Soo;�ane ,�rcaaes, inc.. 472 U. S. 191• 504 (1985). ft other minors in a chat room. in this conte:;:, These I herd is no question that Congress intended to prohibit provisions are no different `rom the law ,,;e Sustained certain communications ben:•een one adult and one or in Gntsbe, . Restricting hat the adult may say to the more minors. See 17 U. S. C. A. §223(a)(1)(B) (May C mi ; what in no way restricts the adult's ability to 1996 Supp.) (punishing •'(wthoever initiates the h communicate with other adults. He is not prevented transmission of [any indecent communication] d from speaking indecently to other adults in a chat room knowingly that the recipient of the communication is (because there are no other adults participating in the under 18 years of age"); §223(d)(1)(A) (punishing n conversation) and he remains free to send indecent e- "[w]hoever . . . sendfs] to a specific person or persons i n mails to other adults. The relevant universe contains under 18 years of age [a patently offensive message)"), c only one adult, and the adult in that universe has the There is also no question that Congress would have s power to refrain from using indecent speech and enacted a narro%ver version of these provisions had it f consequently to keep all such speech within the room known a broader version would be declared e in an "adult"zone. unconstitutional. 47 U. S.C. §608 ("If . . . the t The analoav to Ginsbei breaks down, hov;ever, application [of an.; provision of the CDA] to any when more than one adult is a parte to the person or circumstance is held invalid, . . . the applica- t conversation. If a minor enters a chat room otherwise tion of such provision to other persons or f 1 occupied by adults, the CDA effectively requires the circumstances shall not be affected thereby"). I would adults in the room to stop using indecent speech. If therefore sustain the "indecency transmission" and they did not, they could be prosecuted under the "specific person" provisions to the extent they apply to "indecency transmission" and "specific person" the transmission of Internet communications where the provisions for any indecent statements they make to the party initiating the communication knows that all of i _roup, since they would be transmitting an indecent the recipients are tnirors. message to specific persons, one of whom is a minor. Accord, ante, at 30. The CDA is therefore akin to a II law that makes it a crime for a bookstore owner to sell Whether the CDA substantially interferes with the t pornographic magazines to anyone once a minor enters First Amendment rights of minors, and thereby runs his store. Even assuming such a law might be afoul of the second characteristic of valid zoning laws, constitutional in the physical world as a reasonable presents a closer question. In Ginsberg, the New York ` alternative to excluding minors completely from the law we sustained prohibited the sale to minors of I store, the abc?nce of any means of excluding minors magazines that were "harmful to minors." Under that from chat rcioms in cyberspace restricts the rights of law,a magazine was"harmful to minors" only if it was adults to engage in indecent speech in those rooms. obscene as to minors. 390 U. S., at 632-633. Noting �. The "indecen,:y transmission" and "specific person" that obscene speech is not protected by the First provisions share,,,is defect. Amendment.Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 But these two provisions do not infringe on adults' (1957), and that New York was constitutionally free to speech in all situations. And as discussed below, I do adjust the definition of obscenity for minors, 390 U. S., not find that the provisions are overbroad in the sense at 638. the Court concluded-that the law did not that they restrict minors' access to a substantial amount "invad(e] the area of freedom of expression of speech that minors have the right to read and view. constitutionally secured to minors." Id.. at 637. New Accordingly, the CDA can be applied constitutionally York therefore did not infringe upon the First j in some situations. ;Normally, this fact would require Amendment rights of minors. Cf. F,•_noznik v. the Court to reject a direct facial challenge. United Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205. 213 (1975) (striking down States v.Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987) ("A facial city ordinance that banned nudity that was not challenge to a legislative Act [succeeds only in the "obscene even as to minors"). challenger establish(es) that no set of The Court neither"accept(s) nor reject(s)" the argu- circumstances exists under which the Act would be ment that the CDA is facially overbroad because it valid"). Appellees' claim arises under the First substantially interferes with the First Amendment Amendment, however, and they argue that the CDA is rights of minors. -Inte. at 32. 1 would reject it. facially invalid because it is "substantially overbroad" Ginsberg established that minors may constitutionally —that is, it "sweeps too broadly . . . [and] penalizes] a be denied access to material that is obscene as to substantial amount of speech that is constitutionally minors. As Ginsberg explained, material is obscene as protected," Forsyth Count), v. Nationalist Xfovemenr. to minors if it (i) is "patently offensive to prevailing 505 U. S. 123, 130 (1992). See Brief for Appellees standards in the adult community as a whole with American Library Association et al. 48: Brief for respect to what is suitable . . . for minors"; (ii) appeals Appellees American Civil Liberties Union et al. 39-4!. to the prurient interest of minors: and (iii) is "utterly I agree with the Court that the provisions are overbroad without redeeming social importance for minors." 390 in that they cover anv and all communications between U. S., a! 633. Because the CDA denies minors the adults and minors, regardless of how manv adults right to obtain material that is "patently offensive"— might be pan di of the auence to the communication. even if it has some redeeming value for minors and This conclusion does not end the matter, however. even if it does not appeal to their prurient interests— Where, as here, "the parties challenging the statute are Congress' rejection of the Ginsberg "harmful to those who desire to engage in protected speech that the minors" standard rneans that the CDA could ban some overbroad statute purports to punish . . . (t]he statute speech that is"indecent" (i.e.. "patently offensive") but 17 Fridav,June 27, 1997 Daiiv :appellate Report 319 it that is not obscene as to minors. places displaying modes or shows that are-ham,ful to minors'; Miss. V. I do not deny this possibility, but to prevail in a Code Ann.§97-5-11(1994)(no minors in poolrooms,billiard halls,or where alcohol is sold);Mo. Rev. Stat. 3573.507 (1995) (no minors in 5)•�- facial challenge, it is not enough for a plaintiff to show adult cabarets); Neb. Rev.Stat. §28-809 (1995) (no minors in piaces bit "some" overbreadth. Our cases require a proof of displaying movies or shows that are "harmful to minors"); Nev. Rev. or "real" and "substantial" overbreadth, Broadrick v, Stat. §201.265(3) (1997)(same);N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §571-B:2(II) ay Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973), and a ellees (1986)(same):N.M.Stat.Ann. §30-37-3(1989) (same);N.Y. Penal Law §235.21(2) (McKinney 1989) (same): N.D. Cent. Code §12.1- he pp have not carried their burden in this case. In my view, 27.1-03 (1985 and Supp. 1995) (same); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5903(a) in] the universe of speech constitutionally protected as to (Supp. 1997) (same); S.D. Comp. Laws Ann. §22-24-30 (1988) is minors but banned by the CDA—i.e., the universe of (same); Tenn. Code Ann §39-17-911(b) (1991) (same): Vt. Stat. ng material that is "patently offensive," but which A—. Tit. 13, §2802(b) (1974) (same); Va. Code Ann. §18.2-391 ns nonetheless has some redeeming value for minors or (1996)(same). 2. See,e.g., Ala. Code §13A-12-200.5 (1994); Ariz Rev. Stat. )- does not appeal to their prurient interest—is a very Ann.§13-3506(1989):Ark.Code Ann.5-68-502(1993):Cal. Penal ve small one. Appeilees cite no examples of speech Code Ann. §313.1 (west Supp. 1997);Colo.Rev. Stat. §18-7-502(1) it failing within this universe and do not attempt to (1986); Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-196 (1994); Del. Code Ann..Tit. 11, -d §1365(1)(1) (1995): D.C.Code Ann §22-2001(b)(1)(A) (1996); Fla. explain whythat universe is substantial "in relation to ie the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Ibid. That the Stat.Slat.§84 §7 2-1214); )(1 Code Amt. §16-12-103(5) l)(19; Haw. p y g P•� Rev.Stat.§71_ I-15(1)(1994);Idaho Code§18-1515(1)(1987); Ill. lY CDA might deny minors the right to obtain material Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/11-21 (1993); Ind. Code §35-49-3-3(1) a- that has some "value," see ante, at 32-33, is largely (Supp. 1996); Iowa Code §728.2 (1993); Kan. Stat. Ann. §21- or beside the point. While discussions aboutprison tape 4301c(a)(2) (1988): L-L Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:91.11(8) (West 1986); ld or nude art, see ibid., may have some redeeming Md.Ann Code,An.27,§416B(1996);Mass.Gen Laws,ch.272,§28 id education value for adults, the do not necessarily have §97-5:Minn. Stat.§617.2v. (1987 and Supp. 995); Miss.Code Ann. y Y §97-5-11 (1994);Mo.Rev.Stat. §573.040(1995); Mont.Code Am to any such value for minors, and under Ginsberg, minors §45-8-206 (1995);Neb.Rev. Stat. §28-808 (1995); Nev.Rev. Stat. ie only have a First Amendment right to obtain patently §§201.265(1). (2) (1997);N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. §571-13:20) (1986); Df offensive material that has "redeeming social N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-37-2 (1989): N.Y. Penal Law §235.21(1) (McKinney 1989);N.C.Gen Stat.§14-190.15(a)(1993);N.D. Cent. importance for minors," 390 U. S., at 633 (emphasis Code §12.1-27.1-03 (1985 and Supp. 1995): Ohio Rev. Code Ann. added). There is also no evidence in the record to §2907.31(A)(1)(Supp. 1997);Okla.Stat.,Tit.21,§1040.76(2)(Supp. support the contention that "many [e]-mail 1997); 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.§5903(c)(Supp.1997);R.I.Gen.Laws§1I- le transmissions from an adult to a minor are 31-10(a)(1996); S.C.Code Ann§16-15-385(A)(Supp. 1996):S.D. Is conversations between familymembers,"ante, at 18, n. Comp. Laws Ann. §22-24-28 (1988); Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17- 911(a) (1991);Tex Penal Code Ann. §43.24(b) (1994); Utah Code S, 32, and no support for the legal proposition that such Ann, §76-10-1206(2) (1995); Vt. Stat. Ann.. Tit. 13, §2802(x) 'k speech is absolutely immune from regulation. (1974).Va.Code Ann§18.2-391 (1996);Wash.Rev.Code§9.68.060 )f Accordingly, in my view, the CDA does not burden a (1988 and Supp. 1997);Wis.Stat.§948.11(2)(Supp.1995). it substantial amount of minors' constitutionally protected LS speech. g Thus, the constitutionality of the CDA as a zoning it law hinges on the extent to which it substantially 5 interferes with the First Amendment rights of adults. o Because the rights of adults are infringed only by the "display" provision and by the "indecency �t transmission" and "specific person" provisions as n applied to communications involving more than one V adult, I would invalidate the CDA only to that extent. t Insofar as the "indecency transmission" and "specific person" provisions prohibit the use of indecent speech in communications between an adult and one or more t minors, however, they can and should be sustained. The Court reaches a contrary conclusion, and from that holding that I respectfully dissent. t t Footnotes; r I- See• e.g.,Alaska Stat. Ann. §11.66.300 (1996) (no minors in "adult entertainment"places):Ant. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-3556 (1989) ' (no minors in places where people expose themselves);Ark.Code Ann §§5-27-223, 5-27-224 (1993) (no minors in poolrooms and bars). Colo.Rev.Stat.§18-7-502(2)(1986) (no minors in places displaying movies or shows that are -harmful to children'). Del. Code Ann.,Tit. 11. §1365(i)(2) (1995) (same); D.C. Code Ann. §22-2001(b)(1)(B) (1996) (same); Fla. Stat. §847.013(2) (1994) (same); Ga. Code Ann. §16-12-W]l(b) (1996) (same); Naw. Rev. Stat. §712-1215(1)(b) j (1994)(no minors in movie houses or shows that are-pornographic for minors"); Idaho Code §18-1515(2) (1987) (no minors in places dis- playing movies or shows that are -harmful to minors"); La. Rev. Stat. Ann.§14:91.1 1(B)(West 1986)(no minors in places displaying movies that depict sex acts and appeal to minors' prurient interest): Md. Ann. `-' Code,.An.27,§416E(1996)(no minors in establishments where cenain enumerated acts are performed or portrayed): Mich. Comp. laws 8750.111 (1991)(no minors without an adult in places where alcohol is gold). Minn. Stat. 5617 29s (IOR7 and Sunp. 1997) ino ;mnors in mieueccuai property and tariffs. Uni ed tates by 2000. L�V`n —T -- � 1 What. a tangledweb Net censors weave ASSOCIATED PRESS of people consider them better WASHINGTON — Cybercops than nothing. have their computerized hands So does the government. In a full trying to find out who's report being released today, the naughty and nice on the In- administration takes a hands- off approach to the Internet, fa- ternet. voring industry self-regulation Counties, for example, like to pitch their attractions they're named on the and technical aids such as these programs. But aside from their Web. But Essex, Middlesex or Sussex, hy- shortcomings at stopping porn, the programs have another persensitive smut censors see problem: The more they catch only the s-e-x and declare them smut, the more they shrink the forbidden zones. The same fate awaits those world of innocent knowledge. who want to get information on Screeners typically work by the Net about almost any sub- searching cyberspace for porno- ject with an "uck" ending. At graphic or violent sites and least one popular cybercensor adding them to a forbidden list. won't allow it. Some use fledgling ratings. Someone searching for the But the Internet changes fast. latest on "trucks" or "hockey Cyber Patrol, one of the most pucks"is out of'luck." popular cybercensors, adds 500 The screening programs that sitesa week of some t its 000 forbidden ad n more parents may turn to now list that the Supreme Court has addresses. struck down government con- "It's a moving target," said trols of Internet indecency are Susan Getgood, director of mar known to be spotty at blocking keting for Microsystems Soft- explicit material, although a lot ware Inc. KIDS http: //www.pls.lib.ca.us/pls/ex_net/kids.htmi WEB PAGES FOR KIDS OF ALL AGES Try one of these sites. If you want more, use the search tools such as Yahoo, McKinley, and Weberawler to find other web pages. Look under kids, children, education, subjects, etc. SEARCH THE WEB *Yahooligans! A Web Guide for Kids FUN SITES INFO PAGES *Aha! From the producer of Sesame Street, and Kalifornia History Home Page 3-2-1 Contact IDDr. Bob's Interesting Science Stuff QAwesome Cyber Cards QInternet Public Library...Youth QCyberkids Division 04 Kids 41Kid's Web...a digital library for kids !Global Show-n-Tell !Nine Planets...a Trip thru our Solar *KidCity Virtual Village System •Muppet Page—with links to other mupaet QVolcano World pages SYou Can...Beakman's Science Stuff PLACES TO GO BOOK TYPE STUFF GAno Nuevo !Baby Sitters Club OCalifornia Academy of Science rExploratorium Children's Literature Web Guide iLaserium �CyberSeuss •Lawrence Hall of Science SGoosebumps •Monterey Bay Aquarium �Nlagic School Bus • *San Mateo Co. Attractions Reading Rainbow Reading List !Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk Sports Illustrated for Kids QWincester Mystery House !Stone Soup OX-Files Back to the other page with different choices 1 of 1 07/07/97 14:29:19 G O Ul�t O n O ° �Cd O'J�`►iA Cp' ti._.l� ti W �uO. UQ o Cr co •O��c�c'oo 0oap9v�M ccoocaaa ° o o a ` � x' -n dwa CDe L � c ° � vo ;o . cM,0. a•,, � � a CD cw cof ' � a o �q,n co S . � a .1-4 , •p - y ' `+•mar.cH o+ 9" u ° —° Gc °� Er L 0 ,C tsCyn _ , . o ro-oaq co' ebs- 00 ev 0 . e4' 03 0'a ! " =0m6 S . 0o � rD ° � Cr� aa 1TOe _ .° E'U oaoo0A A) J (A =F "0 a) w � nR TR - wRE ~ Cr m � 4 Q° oa �aa c ° � a ° �aiM 0Erg E`�o8 � p .� � T � Ea-4 fRoo :3° a ° "° ` ecan .0 There was one Rpu a ... .v' c o a a !■��■ who voted for the Democratic For the first time in state his- four ar " fD plan Monday. Sen. Cathie tory, all welfare recipients will nate degrees, and for persons Wright from Simi Valley, a be required to work from the with a"severe family crisis." Mural: Kid Ubr-ary: . Police-like role not desire 'Funds. Chi r show pride ontinued from A-1 said. "We believe it is the parents' responsibili through etween the thorny issues of free speech and pro- to supervise and.instruct the children, to he +d them find the right things." eny allega cting children. Few libraries have opted to block art _ Sccess in any way. In San Mateo County, onlySan Spinelli counters that libraries are the onl . places where children have free access to porno irontinued from A-1 China $runo has installed filtering software on its com- �''�"' Continued from A-1 eters. raphy. "Anywhere else, a kid has to be 18 to bull ince - Hustler or rent 'Deep Throat,'" Spinelli said owledge whatever mistakes the Un The system has worked well for San Bruno, in a may have made over time," The mural project is repre ead librarian Terry Jackson's opinion. "Librar- "Why should a library be different?" � Y "Ou sentative of the kind of chalk' Ci Councilwoman Marti Knight also observer wrote Ty Cobb, Huan s at ans do not want to be police, always looking over City g the Thomlenges presented to participant people's shoulders to see what they are viewing," that parents aren't always around to witnes4 tO Thompson said he was de- l in the program, which is c f` P gr she said. "We haven't had to do any of that." every book and magazine their children pick up, ;yhghted by the offer, and he and some 1 ; sponsored by the YMCA, th The Burlingame library allows open Internet "Parental supervision may not be enou ,' she _, and cc San Mateo County Probatio yj' ccess to children and adults, head librarian Al said. "If parents drop off their kids at the library:,'Glenn instructed the commit- closed Department and the San Mate scotiier said. This is the same position taken by to do a report with friends, you want to feel re 4 tee's lawyer to try to negotiate An Union High School District, Let ost libraries and by the American Library Asso- sured that they will be physically and morally s arrangement. But he cau- the pr said. oned that serious questions there." 4 tion o1 The youths, who meet d i Burlingame library policy says parents — not Spinelli is adamant that he is not "a crusades,, est first be resolved, including son's the peak gang hours of 4 to 1 brartans — should determine what material is against smut and porn." i whether the panel could legally inform m., participate in individu -. 1,tive Huang Immunity for only telll ei P P P ppropriate for children. "Libraries have lots of "The Internet is different,"' he said. "Its a i;r:. art of his testimony. g = and family counseling, tutorin gs parents may not want their kids to see. whole new world out there. Most people have n4'' p y' 14-mc i and a ranof activities, fro o P P f: On a day of opening ence 1 gr kS oA abortion sexuality, violence," Escoffier idea how bad it is." g art therapy to river rafting.The j `„ 3t N �, eemReby the committee's ciaH d also learn about the dangers o y ;, publicans and seven gang activity by visiting a morti- S 1 t s e e n rback Democrats, Thompson immedi- in clos e clan who has handled the ■ a V a �att a ately launched into one of the after bodies of gang members killed most serious allegations — that provi j because of their allegiances. Continued from A-1 versed that order, with mem- see expanded learning" of China sout to influence the Thoml The youths volunteer to at- able to buy a new $1.2 million hers providing the largest share people in their 50s and 60s, he outcome of America's elections Sen tend the program. Once the do, of the budget. Membership has said. in 1996. whose P ! Y transmitter. The station is now doubled to 24,000, Hosle said, KCSM will continue to "The committee believes however, attendance becomes a Y pro- grated buying digital cameras to .re- and viewershipclimbed to duce its own programs, in- high-level Chinese government fairnes court-ordered condition of their lace 20-year-old equipment P gr P Y1.2 million, mak' KCSM the eludingA Higher Education," officials crafted a f to in it 1 probations, Lett bought when the station went those i The ro ai ems to be second-ranked 1 station in "Legal Currents," "Authors and crease China's infli over those P ! from black and white to color. the Bay Area,behind KQED. Critics," "Peninsula People" the U.S. political process," the said. " + working. Three recent gradu- II ­T1.1 I——— „ _.,.,1 t...♦al.. t. ..l_ —. .nA T.,11. " 'r.nnr.— n,.i-T ce '(o from the AL_1American Library Association also send"mail"to a friend in another cyberspace so that you and your child L� town—or county}. can take best advantage of the vast The Internet,World Wide Web, The sheer volume of places to go and resources it offers. information superhighway and things to do online can be overwhelm- Like radio,movies and TV before it, cyberspace are all words used to ing.It can also make it difficult to find there is concern about children's use of describe the most innovative and the exact information that you want.In this new medium. Teaching your child to exciting learning tool of this century. fact,some people have compared make wise choices is one of the most cyberspace to a library with all the important things a parent can do. At the touch of a keyboard,you can on the floor. read the London Times or watch a volcano books dumped Remember, it's not the technology, come to life on a computer screen. You Librarians are experts at selecting. but how it is used,that makes a difference. can read a story to your child, "visit" organizing and categorizing information We hope this brochure will help you Hawaii or view an original copy of so it is easy to find and use. Today.we and your child enjoy the benefits and Lincoln's Gettysburg address.You can are applying those same skills to pleasures of being Web wise. per, . UNA. What Parents Should Know it's important for parents to educate themselves about this new technology and the opportunities for fun and learning it offers.Just as there are different TV . channels and kinds of magazines,there X are many types of places to visit in cyberspace. Here are a few examples: - • World Nide Web sites often contain x colorful graphics,sound,and anima- tion as well as text,and each may be linked to many other Web sites. Many of the most informative sites are sponsored by educational and non- profit organizations. Some sites are f' sponsored by movie companies,toy manufacturers,publishers and other firms to sell their products.There are video games. Participants can talk to children to share their favorite Web sites also thousands of sites created by each other in"real time"with their and what they like about them. Help them individuals to express an idea,pursue remarks appearing as they type them in. discover Web sites that can help them a hobby or"publish"their own vision. E-mail makes it possible to send a with their homework,hobbies and other • Usenet groups are postings on specific written message to one person or to special interests. topics,where the comments,and thousands,almost instantaneously. It's also important to teach children sometimes images,follow one another Spending time online with your child "netiquette"—how to behave online. in a bulletin board style. is one of the best ways to learn and to Such straightforward rules as not typing • Chat rooms are generally devoted to teach responsibility,good conduct and in all capital letters(it looks like you are particular subjects like baseball or values that are important to you. Ask continued on back birthday,or any otherday. http://www.eb.com/bio.html and art games. "'" t"r"•'^' '^"""' """ • Castles for R Pictures,glossary,and interesting stuff http://www.metm_useum.ory/ �ilfle/education/kid.html . Virginia Hamilton.The gifted storyteller an( ter about the Middle Ages. • Mister Rogers'Neighborhood. Delivers activities, applies her internationally recognized creativ8_-.Iities to http://fox.nstn.ca/-tmonk/castle/castkids.htmI advice to parents and a wonderful section on children's this wonderfully accessible site. books tied to specific program themes,all in the gentle b-ttp-//wmbers.aol.com/bodeep/index.htmI • Children's Express. An award-winning news service style of America's favorite neighbor. • Virtual Frog Dissection Kit.A site where no amphibians are featuring news for young people as reported by younghttp://►►�roo..nhs.o_r�/ro>±ers/ sacrificed for science with instructions in many languages. people. http://www.ce.or�/ • Multnomah County Library KidsPage,Portland,Ore. http://www-itg.lbi.gov/ITG.hm.pg.docs/dissect/info.htmi • The Children's Museum of Indianapolis."Where An action-packed,animated site. Special features include . Virtual Mr.Spud Head. Decorating vegetables at its children grow up and adults don't have to"is the a scavenger hunt and other games,"good stuff to read," cyberbest. For the kid in all of us. museum's motto.The pages on sculptor Alexander Calder homework help,hot links to cool sites,jokes,riddles and http://www.westnet.com/-crvwaltothcadothead.html are especially fine. more.http//H ww.multnomahaib.or.us/lib/kids or the.lava version http://www.a l.com/children/home.html • National Aeronautics and Space Administration http://www.wtwtnet.comhc_rvwah/SpudH__ead/SpudHead.html • Children's Television Workshop.Sesame Street in (NASA). Find out how to get photos from space,see a • Voices of Vouth.Children across the world have their say cyberspace,the online home of the Cookie Monster and launch,get a lesson plan. on current events on this site sponsored by UNICEF. the other characters of the popular CTW program. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA homepate.html http;//www,uniccl'.orl;/voy/ http://www.ctw.org/ • National Museum of the American Indian, • Volcano World. Learn about volcanoes around the world • Cranes for Peace. An award-winning site where you can Smithsonian.A beautiful site in the family of excellent while viewing awesome photos and movies. Part of a learn about Sadako,the thousand origami cranes and how Smithsonian Web pages,with notes on current exhibi- NASA project.htip://volcauo.und.nodak.edu/ to fold your own. By Sue Parker and Greg Stripes. tions,research links,publications and more. http://www.he.net/—snarker/cranes.htmi htt //www.si.edu/nmai/ • Whelmers. A science site with activities that aim to catch p�- • The Dinosaur Society.A site that ventures beyond the mind and eye of even the most indifferent students. y • National Wildlife Foundation.The Kids Page Features lit II►://mcreLorl!/wheimers/ Jurassic Park If with"dino-art,"visits to digs,and more. articles in English and Spanish from Ranger Rick, the http://www.dinosociety.org/homepage.htmi environmental magazine for children;a homework help • The White House. Socks the Clinton family cat takes • The Exploratorium.The science museum in San section;and briefings on issues such as the wetlands, kids on a tour. Francisco mounts electronic versions of hands-on exhibits endangered animals,water quality and more. http://www.whilehouse.gov/WH/kids/html/homgh.tml like the science of hockey,tracking severe storms and how http//www.nwf.orl!/kids/ • Vahooligans!The Web Guide for Kids.The weif-known to dissect a cow's eye. search engine's kids source,with the Site of the Week and http://www.exploratorium.edu/ searching tools.http_//www.vahoolil!ans.com/ • Berit's Rest Sites for Children. Rated on a scale of 1-5. htt�_//www.childre_nspartnership.or arentuide/ ForNpi".F*f: A good place to start researching quality sites. parentguide.html ://d b.coch ra n.com/d b_H'I'M 1,:1 heopal;e.d h • American Library Association Parents Page. Tips on http • Fairrosa's Cyber Library. A treasure house of online using the library,how to raise a reader,what parents • The Center for Accessible Technology. Resources and folktales,dragonlore,and links to web sites for children's should know about school libraries and more. support for children and adults with disabilities,their authors created by a children's librarian at the New York http://www.sia.org/parentspgge/ families,teachers,friends and helpers. Public Library. http://www.el.net/('AT/center.html http //www.users.interport.net/-fairrosa/ • Association for Library Service to Children,a division of the American Library Association.Information about • ICONnect. Parents can also take advantage of these • Lullabies and other Songs for Children.The words to reading and programs of special interest to children and online classes and resource lists designed to leach Polly Wolly Doodle and other songs collected by a mom parents, http;//www.ala.nrl,/also/pareuts.links.html, librarians and leachers about the Internet and the wealth in Vancouver. http://www.rIHICWay.org/kidsunl / including lists of the Newbery of educational resources it offers.Sponsored by the (http://www,al.a.or�;/als_c/newhe_ry,html)and Coldecott American Association of School Librarians,a division of ' National('enter for Missing and Exploited Children. (http://www.ala.ors;/aisc/caldecott.h(ml)medals and the American Library Association. A hook at child safety on the.inl'ormation highway: other award-winning and notable books,recordings, htip://www.-,ili.o)ri!/I('()NN/iii(lex.lifini benefits, risks and guidelines lior parents and children. videotapes and software for children,links to"Cool Sites http://www.missing;kds.org/childsaftt}.html for Kids." • The Children's Partnership,The Parents'Guide to the Vandergrift s Children's Literature Page. A thought (http://www.ala.ore/alsc/children.links.html). Information Superhighway. Rules&tools for families .provoking approach with links to many interesting sites online.Comprehensive look at the information superhigh- from Professor Kay Vandergrift of Rutgers. way and what parents should know to help their children http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/special/kav/childlit.htmi use it safely and wisely. AM 4' The following sites are recommended for preschool-elementary + — ' •�""� age children and their parents by librarians who work with children,and with the Web,every day.They include members of the Association for Library Service to Children, the American Association of School Librarians, the Public ,�, �r Library Association, and other divisions of the American *�! 'From 1 heAmerican Library .�SJsiSirQciat� Library Association. ww �1�•iwAw� • Flags of the World.A simple site with color images of • New Moon.An advertising-free electronic magazine for Kids: flags from most of the world's countries created by Jim girls and their dreams,with strong sections for parents. • About Rainbows.Answers to questions about"one of the Croft of Australia. httD://www.newmoon.ore/ most spectacular light shows observed on earth." http://l55.187.10.12/flags/nation-flaQs.htmi http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/blynds/rnbw.html0 Ohio Public Library Information Network(OPLIN). • Internet Public Library.A full service children's Colorful gateway to a wealth of educational and fun • American Memory.Primary documents and historical department, including an"Ask a Question"reference online resources for"webtots"to"webteens." materials available on the Web from the Library of section. Explore science fun and facts with Dr. Internet. httD://WWW.ODli-n.lib.oh.us/EDUCNI'E/ Congress. Check out the Science Fair Project Resource Guide and a http•//Icweb2.ioc.gov/ammem/ammemhome.htmi host of other Internet resources on math,geography, • Origami. Clear instructions and elegant models in the history and other key homework topics.Also features traditional Japanese art of paperfolding from Joseph Wu • Animals,Myths&Legends.A collection of games, "Story Hour,"booklists,book reviews by kids for kids. in Japan. htip://www.datt.co.ip/Origami o / activities and folklore from Australia and around the h //i o / outh/ world. http://www.ozemaii.com.au/—oban/ �' p r t'y • Reading Rainbow.Based on the award-winning PBS • Jean Armour Polly's Fifty Extraordinary Experiences children's television program. Hear an audio greeting • Ann Arbor(Mich.)District Library Youth Page. from host LeVar Burton.View the program schedule,or Designed to look like a notebook,the site opens to helpful for Internet Kids. Wel[organized links to fun,interesting g p P enter the Young Writers and Illustrators Contest. and educational sites from the librarian/author of"The and entertaining sections from homework to hobbies. [nternet Kids Yellow Pages."Includes The Secret Garden, http://www.pin.orulreadingrainhow/levarreetinhtml http://www-personal.umich.edu/---Pfs/aa]Dl/ci)4.htmi a special section on"What Parents of Preschoolers Need • Sacramento(Calif.)Public Library's Kid's Place. • Berkeley(Calif.) Public Library Kid's Page,Calif. An to Know about the Net." Includes a Hot Site of the Month,"hot links"to cool sites online toy box of good kid's books and more. http./lwww.well.com/user/pol /ikyp cxp.html and a section for parents and teachers. http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/bpl/kids/index.htmi . Kidlink.A colorful collection of links of interest to http://www.sna.com/saclib/kids.htm • Bill Nye the Science Guy.Nye applies his entertaining children,including a multicultural calendar. • Sounds of the World's Animals.It's bow-wow in English, approach to science on the Web,with a Demo of the Day, http-//www.kidlink,nr}[ but wanwan in Japanese. Learn how people describe the highlights from the day's television episode and a chance sounds animals make in 13 languages. From Professor to e-mail our own query.htt //n elabs.kcts.o 1 / • K rld.h Over 11,000 stories written by kids all over the y q ry• p' ry g world.http;//www.kidpul►.o�kidp_uh/ Catherine Ball,Dept.of Linguistics,Georgetown University. • Black History.This Black History site offers a full range of http://wwwgeorgetown.edu/cball/animals/animals.htm.i activities and explores African-American issues on the Web. ' Kids of the Web. Features links to Web pages created p by kids and a Kids Web Page Hall of Fame. Created by ' Sports Illustrated for Kids.A busy,colorful site with http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/BHM/AfroAm.htmi articles about sports figures from Jackie Robinson to three siblings. • Brendan Kehoe's Kids on the Web.Primarily a site of http://www.hooked.net/Tern c/kidswen/index.html Jackie Joyner-Kersee; league standings,games and more. Y- http://www.pg_ ii_nder.com/ links to other sites,from homework help to pen pals,with . Latin American Network Information Center. An (a_La!o- li AUA M aVSfC/SIFK/ sections for parents and for net safety. �' — Mg V5 http_/twww.zen.or-g/-g/ extensive collection of sites and resources devoted the study of Latin America,many designed expressly for . Star Journey. A-hcosmtiful site from National Geographic ir • Brian Jacques Home Page.Created for fans and friends children. holp://www.lanic.utexas.edu/la/rel!ion/k-12/ lcaturing star maps and infix on the Bubble telescope. of the Redwall books.By David Lindsay,age 12. http://www.natio"jg ggraphic.com/modules/stars/ http://www.islandnet.com/=gnd/dave/*acques.htmi ' Let's Go On a Dolphin Watch!Two elementary classes share their observations and photos from a dolphin watch ' Today in History.From the Library of Congress,a day by • Brianna's Name That Book.Brimming with booklists, with the Virginia Marine Science Museum off the coast of day listing of historical events. this site featu quiz at the end. Virginia Beach. http !/www o.org/v-mcm/watch,html httD://Icweb2.loc.gov/ammem/today/today_ht I http://www.a. /—dda lbooks.html • Metropolitan Museum of J,New York. The page • U.S. Postal Servic A wealth of games and, es, ` - - for voune neonle includes family euide, I..— stamp collectin ;,iformation and more for young people. continued from front If you don't have a computer or Some schools and community centers shouting),being polite,and keeping Internet connection at home,many also offer special programs for parents quiet in chat rooms until you get a libraries,colleges,and cybercafes offer to learn about the Internet and what it sense of what people are talking equipment for public use. Many provide offers children. about,are simply good manners as Web pages with recommended sites and We encourage you to take advantage of -. well as common sense. offer classes for children and adults. these opportunities. adult you trust if you see something perfectly safe. But,like the real world,the ety Tip online that is scary or that you don't virtual world contains some sites with understand. sexual,violent and other content that may 3. Don't respond to messages that make not be appropriate for children. Since The best way to ensure your child's you feel uncomfortable or uneasy. different families have different standards, safety on the Internet is to be there.Of it's important to establish clear guidelines course,that's not always possible. Just as 4. Never give out a credit card number or for your child's Internet use. you teach your child rules about dealing password online. If you have a home computer,a with strangers outside the home,you must S. Never arrange to meet in person number of software programs are avail- provide rules for communicating online. someone you've met online unless you able to block Web sites you may not want discuss it with your parents and an your child to visit. Even if filters were Some suggested rules: adult goes with you. 100 percent effective,this software is no 1. Always ask your parents'permission Teach your children to be wise substitute for parental guidance. before using your full name,address, consumers in cyberspace.Not everything We strongly recommend that you telephone number or school name they see or hear may be true. Some sites supervise your child's Intemet use at anywhere on the Internet. may be trying to sell them something. home and at the library,and that you teach 2. Always tell your parents or other The vast majority of Internet sites are your child to make informed choices. ¢ More Help for Parents t For a more comprehensive look at the Internet and how to guide your child's What Makes a Good Web site? This brochure includes a list of"50+ Internet use,see The Parents'Guide to the , Here are some guidelines suggested Great Sites for Kids and Parents"com- Information Superhighwav,Rules& Tools by the Children and Technology Com- piled by librarians who work with for Families Online published by the mittee of the Association for Library children and are familiar with the Internet Children's Partnership with The National Service to Children with assistance from and what it offers. (These siteswere PTA and The National Urban League in many other librarians. selected based on the above criteria— consultation with the American Library The purpose and content of the also because they are fun to visit,enter- Association,re isp. G96. To receive a copy, • Web site are clear. A source is taining and/or educational.They are also send a to Parents'06,Santa to Monica,Third St. clearly identified. Contact informa- easy to navigate,have a clearly identified Promenade,Suite 206,Santa MCA tion is provided. source and make effective use of the Web 90401-1321,or borrow from your library. • The content encourages exploration to create a unique interactive experience.) and thinking.It is appealing to,and These"Great Sites"can be found on thel�A FCW I� suits the age level of,the children for American Library Association Web page wf whom it is designed. at http•//ww-Aala org/parentspage/ Stumped for an answer? Can't find • The site is easy to access.It loads greatsites/. the site you're looking for? Children can quickly,and essential information We encourage you to contact your get help with homework questions and comes on the screen first.The informa- librarian with questions and for additional guidance in using Web resources via tion is accurate and updated regularly. Web sites that he or she might recom- KidsConnect,an online question and mend. Borrow materials from your answer service,sponsored by the Ameri- ties of the Web—it does more thanan ca • The site takes advantage of the Phcan i- library.Attend classes. Visit the Ameri- can Association of School Librarians,a can Library Association's "Great Sites" division of the American Library Associa- be done with print.It contributes Web page with your child. tion,with support from Microsoft.Send ' something unique or unusual. questions b e-mail to Send your questions,comments or q y Parents should also examine Web sites suggestions to:librarian@ala.org. AskKC@iconnect.syr.edu. Allow two for racial,gender and other biases they school days for answers. feel are inappropriate for their children. http://-A-%-iv.ala.org/]CONN/AskKC.htmi ALAociation raryAssociation Public Information Office, 50 E. Huron St.,Chicago, IL 60611 AmericanLiAss .'1w-545-2433 ext. 5044/5041 E-mail: nioCaala.ora. Fax: 312-944-8520. A rip Sheet The LT • • GuTde For LibrariansTo CXb ersp(lce , o P • • A Parent Education Campaign of The American Library Association The Internet is the most exciting new tool assistance available at local libraries—comput- for learning of our century. ers, classes, library Web pages, recommended Thanks to this new technology,children can Web sites and, of course, librarians. not only read about volcanoes,they can see one To support this effort, the ALA has pub- erupt.They can"talk"with children in other lished a brochure, The Librarian's Guide to countries and "visit"great museums and libraries Cyberspace for Parents and Kids, with tips for around the world at the touch of a keyboard. parents on how to help their children be Like movies,radio and TV in the past,this "Webwise." (See Help for Parents.) new technology has raised concerns about the ALA also has launched a new Website for possible negative impact on children and the role parents and kids with a selection of"50+ of libraries in providing free access to information. Great Sites" reviewed and recommended by Fact: The vast majority of Internet sites librarians. This online collection will be offer legitimate, helpful and educational updated and expanded with new titles for information. Less than 1 percent contain children and young adults on an ongoing sexually explicit material.* basis. It can be found with links to selected To help address concerns about the Internet, sites on the ALA Web page at http:// the American Library Association urges all www.ala.org/parentspage/greatsites. public, school, academic and special librarians ALA will also seek to place stories and to join in educating members of the public, articles in national newspapers, magazines and especially parents, about the Internet and the other media. Goals Key messages ■ To help librarians ■ The Internet is the most exciting new tool deliver positive for learning since the printing press. messages about the Internet. ■ Libraries and librarians can help parents and children learn to use this technology and ■ promote public make wise choices. awareness of the assistance available 0 It isn't the technology but how you use it at libraries. that makes a difference.That's why it's important that parents teach their children ■ To assist parents in to make wise choices, whether it's about teaching children books, movies,TV or the Internet. t to be "Webwise." a critique of a TIME magazine cover story(July 1, 1995),Donna L.Hoffman and Thomas P.Novak,of the Owen Graduate school of Manage- % tnent,Vanderbilt University, noted that a study of 11,576 WebWide Web sites by researcher Marty Rimm found only nine sites out of 11,576— less than eight one-hundredth of 1 percent—contained R or X-rated Adult Visual Material. Less than 1/2 of I percent of Usenet messages were found to contain pornographic imagery.http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/novak/time.dewitt.htmi �L- What You Can 10 Policies and Practice ■ Educate yourself, your staff, your library ■ Establish a Web page with links to other board, governing bodies, community leaders, sites that have been reviewed and recom- parents, children and others about the mended by library staff. Link your page to Internet, and how to take advantage of the ALM Great Sites Web page at http:// wealth of information it offers. www.ala.org/parentspage/greatsites ■ Establish and implement written guidelines ■ Provide copies of the library's Internet policy and policies on use of the Internet that are in and rules to the public. Remind parents they keeping with your library's mission and are responsible for their children's Internet policies on access to library materials. Have use. Libraries using filtering systems also them in place before you log-on. should advise parents to monitor their ■ Keep in mind the library's role and mission children's use since no filtering system is 100 in a democratic society when making percent effective. decisions about the Internet. Make sure ■ Offer Internet classes for parents and you and your staff understand the First children. Special and academic libraries can Amendment implications for libraries and host classes for employees, students and their users. their families. ■ Consider using privacy screens or arranging ■ Offer a"help line"either on the phone or via Internet terminals away from public view to e-mail for parents and others to get answers protect the confidentiality of users and avoid to questions and concerns. offending other users who might not agree with another's viewing choice. '1 Publicity and Promotion ■ Promote your library's Internet classes and ■ Be prepared to answer tough questions. resources as part of back-to-school activi- They will be asked! ties. Send flyers home with children. Host 0 Collect stories about how children and special demonstrations as part of parents' school orientation. adults are benefiting from the Internet and share them in speeches, media interviews and ■ Reach out to the media. Seek feature stories other presentations. in newspapers and seek radio and TV 0 Sponsor a forum about the Internet and interviews about what the library offers. libraries in cooperation with a local newspa- ■ Seek out opportunities to speak to the PTA, per or community organization such as the the Chamber of Commerce and other school League of Women Voters. and community organizations to explain the importance of this new technology and the N Make a special presentation to the school library's Internet policies and resources board and/or library governing agency. available to help parents and children. Provide copies of The Librarian's Guide to Provide hand-outs. Cyberspace and other educational materials. Public Service Announcement 00:30 sec Cyberspace. The information superhighway. The Internet. What is it? Where is it taking us? How can it help me? Should children be allowed to use it? What are the best Web sites? Find out the answers to these and more questions at a free program on (day) at (time) at the (name) Library. For more information, call (number). GuideThe Li Sraria fi-s- To CXbke & Kids Sample News Release Adapt this copy to reflect the programs and • Take time to learn about the Internet, the services of your library. wealth of educational resources it offers and Library offers help for how to use it wisely. « • Explore cyberspace with your children. Ask Webwise„ parents, kids them to share their favorite Web sites and Cyberspace. The information superhighway. what they like about them. Help them The Internet. What is it? Where is it taking us? discover Web sites that can help them with Should children be allowed to use it?What are their homework, hobbies and other special the best Web sites? How can it help me? interests. The (Name) Library is joining the American • Talk with your children about what they are Library Association and libraries across the seeing and doing in cyberspace. This will give country to help provide answers to these and you insight into their special interests and an other questions for parents. opportunity to express your point of view. A free brochure, The Librarian's Guide to • Provide clear guidelines. Let your children Cyberspace for Parents and Kids, is available at the know there are subjects or areas that you library. The brochure provides tips for parents prefer to be off limits and explain why. on how to guide their children's Internet use and . Teach children "netiquette”—how to behave a list of"SO Great Sites for Kids"reviewed and online. Rules like not typing in all capital recommended by librarians. letters (it looks like you are shouting) and "The Internet is the most exciting new keeping quiet in chatrooms until you get a learning tool since the printing press," explained sense of what people are talking about are (Name and title), of the (Name)Library. considered basic good manners when commu- (Last name) pointed out that like other new nicating online. technology of the past, radio, movies, televi- • Teach your children to be wise consumers in sion, the Internet has raised concerns about its cyberspace. Remind them that not everything possible negative impact on children. they see or hear may be true. Some sites may "It's important to remember that it isn't the be trying to sell them something. technology but how you use it that makes a • Learn how to evaluate Internet sites. Most difference," (last name) explained. "That's why public libraries provide books, magazines, it's important that parents teach their children brochures and other materials with reviews to make wise choices, whether about books, and guides to Worldwide Web Sites. movies,TV or the Internet.' • Teach children "safety" rules for dealing with (Add information about classes, other resources strangers online, such as never giving out the library offers) their full name, address or telephone number; (Last name)noted that the American Library never giving out a credit card number; or Association has a Web page with tips for parents never arranging to meet someone they met and hot links to"50 Great Sites for Kids" at online without your permission. http: //www.ala.org/parentspage/greatsites. Remember, reading and viewing is not the (Last name) said the most important same thing as doing. Many young people thing parents can do is to spend time online seek information in books and online that with their children and provide clear guide- they are embarrassed or are afraid to ask an lines for Internet use. adult. Factual information obtained from a "The best way to ensure your child's safety on reliable source can ease their fears or even the Internet is to be there.But thates not always keep them safe from harm. possible. Just as you teach your child rules about Ask a librarian. Librarians have always been dealing with strangers outside the home,you expert at selecting print materials for children must provide rules for communicating online." of varying ages, interests and abilities. Today (Last name) offered the following tips for they are applying those same skills online. "Webwise" parents. They are there to help you and your child. #### LibrariansA Tip Sheet For Sample Q & A see something that makes you uncomfortable"—the same kinds of things you would tell your children if they were The following are examples of questions that you may be going to the corner store or a movie. asked by reporters and others. Edit these sample answers A The American Library Association has a new brochure The to reflect your own situation. It's important to keep your Librarian's Guide to Cyberspace for Parents and Kids with many answers simple and positive, and to deliver them with more tips for parents and a list of 50 Great Web sites conviction. For more tips on dealing with the media, see recommended by librarians for children. You can pick up a Coping with Challenges published by ALA. You may also copy at the library. Our library also has classes for children wish to take advantage of Library Advocacy Now! train- and adults and a special Web page with recommended sites. ing and the Internet in Libraries: Strategies for the Future Institute. (See Resources.) Q What about using filtering software at the library? I understand the American Library Association is opposed Q Why is it important that every library be to them. connected to the Internet? A The American Library ft Association believes filtering so - A More and more of the information we need for our daily ware can,be a helpful tool for parents in the home but is not lives is being made available through computers. In fact, appropriate in a public place such as the library for several most of us cant imagine how much information is available! reasons.First, filtering technology has not been perfected. But only about 20 percent of American homes are connected It does not allow for individual choice and imposes filtering to the Internet. For many people who can't afford a com- on everyone—whether or not they wish to have their puter,a library may be the only place they can log on. Right choices subject to filtering. now,only about a third of our public libraries are able to offer direct public access to the Internet. Only 14 percent of Second, filtering is sone-size-fits-all"solution." It treats a the nation's classrooms are connected to the Internet.The 6-year-old, a 16-year-old and a 60-year-old the same.It may number is growing daily. goal is to et eve public, even block useful information. For example, one system was g y g g every p found to filter"sexual harassment." school and academic library online by the year 2000. Third,it is impossible to block all inappropriate sites, both Q The American Library Association was the lead plaintiff in challenging the Communications Decency Act. Why do because of the way filters work and the fact that the Internet librarians protect pornography instead of children? changes very fast.Filtering software can give parents a false sense of security and could even make the library liable if A Librarians protect children by protecting one of our most parents believe their children are being protected from precious freedoms in a democratic society—the right to "offensive material." read,view and listen to materials that we choose for our- selves or our children. Librarians also assist children in We encourage parents to come to the library with their selecting and using the best materials for their needs, children and supervise their Internet use. whether it's a good book or a good Web site. Q Can't you just put the filters in the children room? Q A lot of people, especially parents, are concerned about A Again, filtering is not a fool proof solution. Children of children's access to the Internet, and the fact they might many different ages, maturity levels and backgrounds use encounter"X-rated" material. Do you have any advice libraries.We believe parents should decide for their own for parents? children what they wish them to see and read. A Definitely. First,it's important to remember that the vast Q Won't computers and the Internet put libraries out of business? majority of information on the Internet is perfectly legiti- A On the contrary,we'll need libraries more than ever! One of mate and safe.In fact, there is a great deal of valuable the most important things librarians do is to organize information that can help children to learn both in and information so that we can find what we need easily. Today, outside the classroom. Technology is not the problem. It's librarians are applying those skills to the Internet. And for how you use it. The most important thing parents can do many children and adults, school and public libraries are the is to learn about the Internet and teach their children to only place where they can go to surf the Internet. But make wise choices the same way they would about books,or libraries are much more than computers. They are centers movies or video games. It's up to parents to provide clear for learning, literacy and culture. For many of us, libraries guidelines for their children and talk with them about what are an oasis of calm in a stressful world—one where we can they believe is—or isn't appropriate. enjoy a moment of silence with a good mystery or book of Q There are a lot of other common sense things that parents poetry. I can't imagine a world where we won't need that! can do,like telling your children, "Don't tell your full name to strangers online." Or,"Let me know immediately if you . . • Help for Parents The Librarian's Guide to Cyberspace for Parents The brochure can be downloaded for and Kids brochure published by the American printing at http://www.ala.org/parentspage/ Library Association provides helpful tips for greatsites/download/ parents and a selection of"50+ Great Sites" reviewed and recommended by librarians. It Share and Learn can be found online with links to selected sites Libraries are encouraged to send copies of on the ALA Web page at http://www.ala.org/ their Internet access policies and educational parentspage/greatsites. materials to the ALA Office for Intellectual Up to 50 copies of the brochure are available Freedom, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. free from the ALA Public Information Office, To receive samples of policies and materials 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. Tele- from other libraries or the ALA's Interpretation phone: 800-545-2433, ext. 5044/5041. E- of the Library Bill of Rights on access to mail:pio@ala.org. Additional copies are $25 for electronic information, contact the Office for 50 brochures. Camera-ready copy is also Intellectual Freedom at 800-545-2433, ext. available, and you are free to add your library's 4223, by fax at 312-280-4227 or by e-mail at name or edit copy to reflect your library's oif@ala.org. programs and services. More Resources Access Policies: Sample policies for k-12 can Internet in Libraries.Strategies for the Future. be found at http://www.enet.edu/tenet-info/ Training institute sponsored by the American accept.html. Examples of public library Library Association. Contact the ALA Office Internet policies can be found at http:// for Intellectual Freedom, 50 E. Huron St., -- www.ciloswego.or.us/library/poli.htm Chicago, IL 60611. Telephone: 800-545-2433, "Filtering Information on the Internet,"by ext. 4223. Fax: 312-280-4227. E-mail: Paul Resnick., Scientific American, March 1997, oif@ala.org. p 62-64 Library Advocacy Now!. Training programs "Children Online Report," Consumers on how to be an effective spokesperson for Reports, an evaluation of Web "baby-sitters." p. library issues. Free. Contact the ALA Public 27-30, May 1997. Information Office. Telephone: 800-545-2433, Coping with Challenges. Guidelines and tips for ext. 5055/4041. Fax: 312-944-8520. E-mail: library policies and procedures, tips for dealing with pio@ala.org the media. Free. American Library Association. Library Bill of Rights and Interpretations, Contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Free- guidelines for library policies and more. American dom, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. Library Association, Office for Intellectual Telephone: 800-545-2433, ext. 4223. Fax: 312- Freedom, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. 280-4227. E-mail: oif@ala.org. Telephone: 800-545-2433, ext. 4223. Fax: 312- Guiding Children Through Cyberspace. Tools 280-4227. E-mail: oif@ala.org. Http:H and options on how to guide children's use of www.ala.org/oif.htmi the Internet from Carolyn Caywood. http:// Purchase of Blocking Software by Public www6.pilot.infi.net/-carolyn/guide.html Libraries is Unconstitutional,Jonathan Wallace The Internet Advocate. A Web-based resource (http://www.spectacle.org) guide for librarians and educators about A Safety Net for the Internet: A Parent's providing youth access to the Net, by Lisa Guide. Tips for parents. New York Public Champeli. http://WW1/monroe.lib.in.us./ Library: http://www.nypi.org/branch/ -lchampel/netadv.html safety.html • Sheet For . . . . . ALA P To order from ALA Editions: dial 800-545-2433, press 7. Fax: 312-836-9958 ■ The Cybrarian's Manual, Pat Ensor, editor,A ■ The Frugal Youth Cybrarian: Bargain Comput- browsable compendium of knowledge for ing for Kids, Calvin Ross. Almost 300 of the 21st-century-ready librarians. $42 pbk. ALA best bargain resources for children, along Members $37.80 ISBN 0-8389-0693-1 with low-cost computer applications for 472p. 1997 library staff. $28.00 pbk. ALA Members ■ Building the Service-Based Web Site:A Step-by- $25.20. ISBN 0-8389-0694-X. 336p. 1997 Step Guide to Design and Options, Kristen L. ■ Intellectual Freedom Manual, Fifth Edition, Garlock& Sherry Piontek. How to mount a ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. home page on the Web and other guidelines Revised and updated for fighting today's for maximizing cyberspace services. $25 pbk. more aggressive attempts at censorship. ALA Members $22.50. $35.00 pbk. ALA Members $31.50 ISBN 0- ISBN 0-8389-0674-5. 101p. 1996 8389-0677-X. 393p 1996 ■ All-Out Internet Access: The Cambridge Public ■ The Internet Troubleshooter: Help for the Library Model,Miles R. Fidelman. Logged-On and Lost, Nancy R.John & Edward J. Valauskas. Real-life examples and ■ How to plan, implement, operate, and support answers to FAQ shed light on cyberspace. all-out Internet patron access. $28 pbk. ALA $27 spiral-bound ALA.Members $24.3 0. Members $25.20. ISBN 0-8389-0687-7. 120p. 1997 ISBN 0-8389-0633-8. 145p. 1994 ■ Internet Initiative:Libraries Providing Internet oyle's Information Highway Handbook: Practical File on the New Information Order, Services and How They Plan, Pay,and Manage, Karen Coyle.Major new visions of the Edward J.Valauskas & Nancy R.John. information future. $30.00 pbk. ALA Eighteen up-to-date reports demonstrate what libraries across the country have done and how Members $27. ISBN 0-8389-0708-3. � Mem . 272p. 1997 they did it.$27 pbk. ALA Members$24.30. ApproxISBN 0-8389-0668-0. 170p. 1995. .ALA American Library Association Public Information Office 50 E.Huron St. Chicago, IL 6061 1 Telephone:800-545-2433. ext.5044/5041 Fax: 312-944-8520 Email: pio@ala.org I Contributors: Ann Symons, ALA Intellectual ' Freedom Committee;Julie Walker, American Association of School Librarians; Steven Herb, Association for Library Services to Children; Patricia Glass Schuman, Library Advocacy Now! Network This tip sheet may be reproduced and distributed by libraries of all types. June 1997 • Sheet For •