Would this make a good CIPA-as-applied lawsuit?

I think so. If actually implemented as reported (unless the "capable" filters are turned off), the ACLU or others might take a look at filing a First Amendment as-applied challenge.

All library computers will soon have one of two filters: children's computers will have broad filters capable of blocking pornographic material as well as violent or hateful material. Adult computers will have narrower filters designed to block visually pornographic sites.

By Alison Shackelford, L.A. County libraries set porn limits on computer users October 13, 2005 Copley News Service

I understand the impulse to protect children from violent and hateful sites - but they have a right to such material, and in fact who decides what's hateful or violent?   Government prohibitions against violent video games, however well intended, fail once challenged in court. See July 17, 2004 LibraryLaw Blog post.

Comments

I think so. If actually implemented as reported (unless the "capable" filters are turned off), the ACLU or others might take a look at filing a First Amendment as-applied challenge.

All library computers will soon have one of two filters: children's computers will have broad filters capable of blocking pornographic material as well as violent or hateful material. Adult computers will have narrower filters designed to block visually pornographic sites.

This is perhaps a technical point, but would it be an CIPA-as-applied lawsuit, or simply a free speech suit, brought, I presume, under 42 U.S.C. 1983? For the library is not applying CIPA, as CIPA does not authorize [filtering] violent or hateful material, and I presume that the library would not even try to defend itself on the basis of CIPA.

Also — and you don't mention this — CIPA does not authorize the blocking of "visually pornographic sites" for adults, but only of obscenity and child pornography. This is not a matter of interpreting CIPA; it is a matter of rogue library officials.