ACLU

, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997).

1

  The government responds that CIPA will not induce

public libraries to violate the First Amendment, since it is possible for at least some

public libraries to constitutionally comply with CIPA's conditions.  Even if some

libraries' use of filters might violate the First Amendment, the government submits that

CIPA can be facially invalidated only if it is impossible for any public library to comply

with its conditions without violating the First Amendment.

Pursuant to CIPA, a three judge Court was convened to try the issues.  Pub. L. No.

106 554

.

Following an intensive period of discovery on an expedited schedule to allow

public libraries to know whether they need to certify compliance with CIPA by July 1,

2002, to receive subsidies for the upcoming year, the Court conducted an eight day trial

at which we heard 20 witnesses, and received numerous depositions, stipulations and

documents.  The principal focus of the trial was on the capacity of currently available

filtering software.  The plaintiffs adduced substantial evidence not only that filtering

programs bar access to a substantial amount of speech on the Internet that is clearly

1

 Plaintiffs advance three other alternative, independent grounds for holding CIPA

facially invalid.  First, they submit that even if CIPA will not induce public libraries to

violate the First Amendment, CIPA nonetheless imposes an unconstitutional condition on

public libraries by requiring them to relinquish their own First Amendment rights to

provide unfiltered Internet access as a condition on their receipt of federal funds.  

See

infra

 n.36.  Second, plaintiffs contend that CIPA is facially invalid because it effects an

impermissible prior restraint on speech by granting filtering companies and library staff

unfettered discretion to suppress speech before it has been received by library patrons and

before it has been subject to a judicial determination that it is unprotected under the First

Amendment.  

See Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad

, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975). 

Finally, plaintiffs submit that CIPA is unconstitutionally vague.  

See City of Chicago v.

Morales

, 527 U.S. 41 (1999).

8