853 F. Supp. 2d 888
W.D. Mo.2012Background
- PFLAG and allied organizations sue Camdenton School District over an internet filtering system that blocks LGBT-positive content.
- Camdenton relies on URL Blacklist filters (sexuality, religion, pornography) to curb access and claim compliance with CIPA.
- URL Blacklist dynamically blocks sites; customization occurs only by manually whitelisting/blacklisting after a site is requested.
- Students may request unblocking via email or a template; responses are manual within 24 hours.
- Court holds evidentiary record supports that URL Blacklist discriminates against LGBT-positive viewpoints and that Camdenton continues use despite notice of discrimination.
- Court grants temporary injunction requiring discontinuation or non-discriminatory reconfiguration of filtering to avoid LGBT-viewpoint discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether URL Blacklist discriminates based on viewpoint against LGBT content. | PFLAG shows LGBT-positive sites are disproportionately blocked. | Camdenton asserts filtering complies with CIPA and is viewpoint-neutral. | PFLAG likely succeeds; system is viewpoint-discriminatory. |
| Whether the organizational Plaintiffs and Jane Doe have standing. | Organizations and Jane Doe suffer injury-in-fact from viewpoint-based blocking. | Standing lacks because no direct access attempts shown. | Both organizational Plaintiffs and Jane Doe have standing. |
| What standard applies to evaluating the filtering policy (exacting scrutiny vs ALA reasonableness). | Exacting scrutiny (Pico/Pratt) should govern as viewpoint discrimination present. | ALA reasonableness could apply to internet filtering. | Exacting scrutiny applies; system unlikely to be narrowly tailored. |
| Whether irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest justify injunction. | Continued discrimination harms First Amendment rights; injunction appropriate. | Disabling or reconfiguring filters could conflict with CIPA and safety. | Injunction granted to discontinue discriminatory filtering; public interest favors rights protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (fair chance of success standard for non-statutory actions; more exacting review for government policies)
- United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003) (internet filters may be used; focus on viewpoint discrimination and purpose of the forum)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (strict scrutiny for viewpoint-based content restrictions in non-public forums)
- Bd. of Ed., Island Trees Un. Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1982) (right to receive information; removal of books subject to strict standards)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1969) (students’ First Amendment rights; evidence of disruption not required for viewpoint discrimination claim)
- Pratt v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 831, 670 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1982) (stigmatic injury from viewpoint discrimination is significant for standing/merits)
- Counts v. Cedarville Sch. Dist., 295 F. Supp. 2d 996 (W.D. Ark. 2003) (unblocking procedures; standing considerations in school filtering context)