[2][3] CIPA required that in order to qualify for federal assistance for Internet access, public schools and libraries must install software that blocked images deemed obscene, and other material which could be dangerous for minor children.

The Court explained that the Internet is simply "another method for making information available in a school or library... [and is] no more than a technological extension of the book stack.

[1] Justice David Souter also dissented, arguing that CIPA was not narrowly tailored to achieve the government's legitimate interest in restricting harmful Internet content.

He believed CIPA to be an unconstitutional "content-based restriction on communication of material in the library's control that an adult could otherwise lawfully see" rising to the level of censorship.

[8] Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, also stated that "'Although we are disappointed that the Court upheld a law that is unequivocally a form of censorship, there is a silver lining.