arguments that CIPA effects a prior restraint on speech and is unconstitutionally vague. 

Nor do we decide their cognate unconstitutional conditions theory, though for reasons

explained 

infra 

at note 36, we discuss the issues raised by that claim at some length.  

For these reasons, we will enter an Order declaring Sections 1712(a)(2) and

1721(b) of the Children's Internet Protection Act, codified at 20 U.S.C.   9134(f) and 47

U.S.C.   254(h)(6), respectively, to be facially invalid under the First Amendment and

permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing those provisions.

II.

  Findings of Fact

A.  Statutory Framework

1.  Nature and Operation of the E rate and LSTA Program

s

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( 1996 Act ), Congress directed the

Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) to take the steps necessary to establish a

system of support mechanisms to ensure the delivery of affordable telecommunications

service to all Americans.  This system, referred to as  universal service,  is codified in

section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 1996 Act.  

See 

47

U.S.C.   254.  Congress specified several groups as beneficiaries of the universal service

support mechanism, including consumers in high cost areas, low income consumers,

schools and libraries, and rural health care providers.  

See 

47 U.S.C.   254(h)(1).  The

extension of universal service to schools and libraries in section 254(h) is commonly

referred to as the Schools and Libraries Program, or  E rate  Program.

Under the E rate Program,  [a]ll telecommunications carriers serving a geographic

16