• Internet Filtering Options Analysis: An Interim Report (73-page PDF file from the InFoPeople Project, dated May 2001)
• Wisconsin DPI CIPA FAQ

• Libraries that receive both E-rate and LSTA funds for affected purchases must follow the requirements for E-rate compliance with CIPA.

• The FCC considers Year 2003 of the E-rate program (beginning July 1, 2003) to be the "first funding year" for public libraries for purposes of implementing the Act.
• Libraries and schools must be "undertaking actions" to comply with CIPA in order to receive E-rate eligible services during Year 2003 (beginning July 1, 2003). Examples of appropriate measures for "undertaking action" are given in SLD's letter of June 19, 2001.
• Libraries must make their first certification of compliance with filtering and Internet policy provisions of the Act no later than October 28, 2003.
  • This initial certification need not be a certification of full compliance.  It may be a certification that the library is "undertaking compliance" but has not yet completely complied with the law. 
   
  • Full compliance with the filtering provisions of CIPA will be required no later than July 1, 2004, when service begins for Year 2004 of the E-rate program. The library must be in compliance when services begin, even if the library has not yet certified full compliance by filing Form 486. In most cases, this would mean that by July 1, 2004, the library must be in full compliance with filtering requirements.
•  Consortium members will file Form 479 ("Certification to Consortium Leader of Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act")with the "lead member" of the consortium (i.e., the entity that actually files on behalf of the consortium). The "lead member" will then file Forms 471 and 486 on behalf of the entire consortium. If any member of the consortium is found to be out of compliance with CIPA, only the portion of E-rate funds designated for that consortium member will be affected.

• A waiver is possible during the first year of implementation for libraries unable to meet the certification deadline because of local procurement rules, regulations, or competitive bidding requirements related to obtaining the technology necessary to implement the law.

CIPA Background and History

CIPA Rules (37-page PDF document, April 5, 2001)

• FCC corrections to original rules (2-page PDF document, April 20, 2001)
• A brief summary of the rules (updated April 23, 2001)
• Summary information from Wisconsin's State Division for Libraries (1-page PDF document, April 11, 2001)

History of CIPA Implementation

• The rulemaking process for implementation of CIPA was carried out initially by the FCC because of the Act's implications for administration of the Universal Service (E-rate) program. FCC has responsibility for the E-rate program through its oversight of the Universal Service Administrative Company's Schools and Libraries Division (SLD).
• FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting public comment on several issues involved in implementing the Act.
• Comments on the NPRM were due by February 15, 2001, and replies to those comments were due by February 22, 2001.
• Final rules were issued on April 5, 2001. Corrections were issued on April 19.
• SLD issues guidelines on what "undertaking compliance" actually means (May 18, 2001)
• SLD letter on "undertaking compliance" for steps to be taken before July 1 (June 19, 2001)
• May 31, 2002: A three-judge panel sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled Sections 1712(a)(2) and 1721(b) of the Children's Internet Protection Act to be facially invalid under the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing those provisions.
  • The text of the decision
  • Discussion of public forum doctrine (extract from the decision)
• March 5, 2003: The U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the CIPA case (United States v. American Library Association, 02-361). Transcripts are available at the Supreme Court's transcripts website.
• June 25, 2003: The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional.  Five opinions were issued:  the plurality opinion (Rehnquist, with O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas), two concurring opinions (Kennedy and Breyer), and two dissenting opinions (Stevens, and Souter with Ginsburg).
• FCC issues its second CIPA order.

• Internet Filtering Options Analysis: An Interim Report (73-page PDF file from the InFoPeople Project, dated May 2001)
• Internet filtering information from the Southern Regional Education Board's Educational Technology Cooperative (March 27, 2001)
  • Filtering update
  • Annotated list of filtering technologies and programs
• Report of the NTIA on "Technology Protection Measures" in Section 1703 of CIPA (August 2003)
• The Commission on Online Child Protection (COPA) report was commissioned by Congress after the passage of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 1998. It was issued in October 2000. It surveys the current situation and notes that "no particular technology or method provides a perfect solution" for protecting children from obscene or potentially harmful material on the Internet. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld an injunction against COPA in June 2000. It was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration. On March 6, 2003, the Third Circuit again upheld an injunction prohibiting enforcement of COPA. The Supreme Court upheld the injunction in 2004. The case was tried again in 2007, and the law was again overturned. That decision was upheld on appeal in 2008, and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in 2009, effectively invalidating COPA.